Choose from these two options...

acropolis said:

[/FONT]
Most Christians are luke-warm fair-weather types that put politics and their own comfort before Christ. Most people alive of any religion or non-religion just sorta plod along and do mostly what they want, and occasionally do something good if it makes them feel better. It's not unusual but it is certainly tragic.

Click to expand...

As interesting as this to and fro has been, this is something that i'm starting to think the majority never take seriously enough. At least not when it applies to themselves. Everyone else? Whoo-whee, it's a point and tut party.

Still, rather interesting to observe.

Obzocky said:

As interesting as this to and fro has been, this is something that i'm starting to think the majority never take seriously enough. At least not when it applies to themselves. Everyone else? Whoo-whee, it's a point and tut party.

Still, rather interesting to observe.

Click to expand...

Yeah yeah, I'm the real bad guy, I know.

This is been helpful for me to get back into the spirit of things. I've spent these last few months so locked in to my professional projects I've lost touch with what actually matters in life. I've got stuff in this house I'm not using and money I could spend on better things. Gotta refocus. Stress is no excuse to stop giving.

It does pain me to be constantly reminded of how often the Gospels are useless to people. There's so much potential in each and every person and it just doesn't get realized most often. It's understandable, though, because it is radical. And it's not like I'm going to convince a single person to do anything other than what they feel is comfortable. They've already been commanded by their lord and savior in crystal-clear language, and if that isn't enough then my ramblings certainly aren't going to make a difference.

It's just human nature. That's all it could ever be. It's not particular to any given divine narrative or belief system: people just want to be comfortable and look out for number one. It's how we do. And the depth and breadth of human suffering always seems so massive and intractable that it's hard to stay motivated, but I don't think there is any other meaningful way to live but to try in whatever ways are available to leave the world a better place.

Talk is cheap and I think it's time I shut up and started doing more than I am.

acropolis said:

Giving money to those who need it isn't 'throwing it around', it's addressing human need.

Click to expand...

Strawman. I never said giving money was always throwing it around, but I think using common sense is needed too.

acropolis said:

If wealth is anathema in Christianity, but necessary for a specific mode of economics, that might tell you something about the ethics of that that economic system.

Click to expand...

Wealth isn’t necessary for an economic model, it’s necessary for economics period. It’s like trying to deny 2+2=4. Without wealth, everyone would be in poverty, unless that’s what you want.

acropolis said:

Not strictly defining the rich and poor is exactly how you avoid absolutism, actually.

Click to expand...

Then quit using it in such an absolute sense.

acropolis said:

Fortunately there are passages to help narrow your focus, you even quoted some of them previously. Whomever has a need which you can fulfill, that's to whom you should give whatever you can spare, and even beyond.

Click to expand...

But again, charity and wealth can co-exist (they must co-exist for anyone to have anything). But you still ignore my exegesis of the rich young ruler passage and just keep saying “I’m right” without actually proving it.

acropolis said:

What you call common sense and critical thinking is just lazily preferring your economic doctrine over your religion.

Click to expand...

Another non-argument that you don’t back up.

acropolis said:

It's what nearly everyone does, but as they say, the path is narrow and few will find it.

Click to expand...

Cut it with the self-righteous dude. I know Christians who know a hell of a lot more than you do about the Bible and would agree with me.

acropolis said:

You interpret scripture in whatever way fits what you would like to be true.

Click to expand...

Then it shouldn’t be that difficult to show why my reading is wrong. You haven’t done that. You really haven’t addressed anything I’ve said. You’ve just thrown out generalities while ignoring all of the substantive things I’ve said.

acropolis said:

It has no authority for you.

Click to expand...

Talk is cheap.

And I already I said I’m a mainline Protestant, so my understanding of scripture is different from many Christians here, but just ignore that I guess. It’s what you’re best at.

acropolis said:

If Jesus had intended for people to be wealthy but occasionally give a bit here and there he probably would have said exactly that rather than consistently calling for a more radical form of charity.

Click to expand...

Strawman, again. I never said that Jesus said everyone has to be wealthy, I just don’t think it’s inherently wrong if someone wants to take that risk to make goods and services to provide on the market.

acropolis said:

He could have said anything at all including saying exactly what you're saying now, such that it would be clear without any need to rely on metaphor. But he didn't, and instead you find yourself having to constantly find a way to interpret his words differently from their most obvious meaning. It's not as if this is Revelation, either; the Gospels are written in almost entirely clear language. Perhaps he said what he said because he actually meant it?

Click to expand...

Jesus rarely said anything clearly. He mostly spoke in parables, extreme metaphors and even His closest disciples didn’t understand Him. But as I said, I apply critical thinking to Jesus words, while you read them the way fundamentalists read the Bible.

acropolis said:

It's perfectly possible to give away literally every single thing you own.

Click to expand...

Of course, but even you said that’s not what you’re advocating.

acropolis said:

It involves living in community.

Click to expand...

That isn’t giving up everything. You still have stuff.

acropolis said:

It's a radical form of life, but Jesus blazed a radical path.

Click to expand...

Jesus could be quite radical, but He seemed pretty practical too. Again, you’re overly romanticizing.

acropolis said:

I suspect living in cooperation was the intended way of living according to Christ since it's the only way to actually do as he commands.

Click to expand...

B.S. Even the early church gave up on that pretty quick.

As I said before, you obviously don’t wanna actually interact with anything I say and just repeat the same things over and over.

acropolis said:

If communal living is off-limits, then at the very least they should dispense with their superfluous assets--their wealth--immediately.

Click to expand...

Jesus wasn’t all that immediate to tell the rich young ruler to dispense with his wealth. As I pointed out, that wasn’t even the first thing He told him to do.

acropolis said:

And once wealth is created it should be given to others for someone who follows Christ.

Click to expand...

Of course. But don’t’ you think maybe some should be, you know, invested to keep production going? And maybe even the entrepreneur keep some himself? You do realize the commandment is love your neighbor as yourself, not in spite of yourself, correct? But I’m sure you’ll just repeat the same crap that I’ve already addressed.

acropolis said:

You're putting your politics and economics in front of Jesus which can't be a good idea.

Click to expand...

You haven’t the slightest idea as to what you’re talking about. But as I said, continue to be ignorant.

acropolis said:

I know a few people who really follow Christ. They are of many religions and beliefs and none of them are rich in anything but social capital.

Click to expand...

Then you should get out more.

acropolis said:

Most Christians are luke-warm fair-weather types that put politics and their own comfort before Christ

Click to expand...

Oh just shut the hell up. I’m tired of you insulting everyone.

acropolis said:

Most people alive of any religion or non-religion just sorta plod along and do mostly what they want, and occasionally do something good if it makes them feel better. It's not unusual but it is certainly tragic.

Click to expand...

And you show your ignorance again. Most people are far better people than you give them credit for. But really, I know you’re just trolling here, so maybe I shouldn’t bother.

Can you be classed as a bad guy if you've encouraged someone engage in an actual discussion? I don't know, if someone who does not identify as a Christian makes points that are actually rather logical if you're a believer in scripture and what not is should at least make people evaluate their choices in life and contemplate whether it's how they should be living as a Christian who or how they wish to be living with a hint of Christianity. Stranger things have made people rethink their focus in life.

Anyway. I have nothing of worth to add, so i'll go back to observing. It has been rather fascinating.

Obzocky said:

Can you be classed as a bad guy if you've made someone engage in an actual discussion? I don't know, if someone who does not identify as a Christian makes points that are actually rather logical if you're a believer in scripture and what not is should at least make people evaluate their choices in life and contemplate whether it's how they should be living as a Christian who or how they wish to be living with a hint of Christianity. Stranger things have made people rethink their focus in life.

Anyway. I have nothing of worth to add, so i'll go back to observing. It has been rather fascinating.

Click to expand...

I agree, I am enjoying reading this exchange.

wannaberocker said:

Ok alot of people keep mentioning they will take the money. The reasoning they use is because they can do alot of good and help people with said money.

But asnwer me this.

Im assuming that you will spend the money on other people to bring some joy and happiness into their lives. so the question is as follows:

Q. What makes person X's happiness more important than your personal happiness?

Click to expand...

Because doing so would allow me to fulfill one of my biggest dreams and goals in life. Helping others and seeing them happy would bring me a great happiness within. I don't think marriage is the end deal for happiness, I know of several people who I think have regrets in marrying so early on in their lives.

Wild Heart Like A Wolf said:

Because doing so would allow me to fulfill one of my biggest dreams and goals in life. Helping others and seeing them happy would bring me a great happiness within. I don't think marriage is the end deal for happiness, I know of several people who I think have regrets in marrying so early on in their lives.

Click to expand...

People idolise marriage and think it will be their ticket to happiness. The people that chose the money (myself included) would use it to help others because it makes them feel good and allows them to help society, they'd use it to build up a business, help their parents/siblings, whatever they see fit to use it for. A person with a trillion dollars is not necessarily less happy than a married person who may or may not be living in financial strain and be experiencing the stress that comes with that.

Ariadne_GR said:

People idolise marriage and think it will be their ticket to happiness. The people that chose the money (myself included) would use it to help others because it makes them feel good and allows them to help society, they'd use it to build up a business, help their parents/siblings, whatever they see fit to use it for. A person with a trillion dollars is not necessarily less happy than a married person who may or may not be living in financial strain and be experiencing the stress that comes with that.

Click to expand...

Bingo.

Ariadne_GR said:

People idolise marriage and think it will be their ticket to happiness. The people that chose the money (myself included) would use it to help others because it makes them feel good and allows them to help society, they'd use it to build up a business, help their parents/siblings, whatever they see fit to use it for. A person with a trillion dollars is not necessarily less happy than a married person who may or may not be living in financial strain and be experiencing the stress that comes with that.

Click to expand...

Society can burn. Let me hold my own child in my arms, a trillion dollars can't buy that.

ImperatorWall said:

Society can burn. Let me hold my own child in my arms, a trillion dollars can't buy that.

Click to expand...

Now that's selfish. And actually a trillion dollars can buy that. Modern medicine can do a lot if you have the cash.

ImperatorWall said:

Society can burn. Let me hold my own child in my arms, a trillion dollars can't buy that.

Click to expand...

I voted for the trillion dollars, but I can also see your point here easily. There would be nothing that could match that feeling really.

But, also said, you can adopt children and raise them as your own with that trillion dollars.

Ariadne_GR said:

Now that's selfish. And actually a trillion dollars can buy that. Modern medicine can do a lot if you have the cash.

Click to expand...

You want me to choose between my child and society? I'll choose my child every time.

And no, a trillion dollars cannot buy a Godly marriage, which is the only place I'll ever have a child.

Well at least you're loyal to your imaginary child. I would hope that once that does happen for you that you do actually care about the rest of society however. The two shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

Ariadne_GR said:

Well at least you're loyal to your imaginary child. I would hope that once that does happen for you that you do actually care about the rest of society however. The two shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

I don't care about society now.

I care about individuals, but not society as a whole.

ImperatorWall said:

I don't care about society now.

I care about individuals, but not society as a whole.

Click to expand...

Society does not rely solely on one person with lots of my money.

I originally said I'd take the trillion dollars. But I'd change my mind now I think and go with marriage.

Ariadne_GR said:

People idolise marriage and think it will be their ticket to happiness. The people that chose the money (myself included) would use it to help others because it makes them feel good and allows them to help society, they'd use it to build up a business, help their parents/siblings, whatever they see fit to use it for. A person with a trillion dollars is not necessarily less happy than a married person who may or may not be living in financial strain and be experiencing the stress that comes with that.

Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail on the head here.

I've never really understood the whole "money can't buy happiness" thing. Sometimse I think the attitude is just a coping mechanism for people who barely get by or who don't have enough to pursue their dreams. Choosing the money doesn't mean we don't need love or friendship. It just means that we want a different lifestyle than a marriage, which can be a hit or miss when it comes to happiness. If you've ever made somebody else truly happy, you'd know how much happiness that can bring yourself. With a trillion dollars, I could make a lot of people truly happy by fulfilling their wildest dreams.

I'm going to assume for the sake of the rather vague OP that the choices are:

1) 1 Trillion and no serious partner/monogamy, just perhaps a string of somewhat shallow relationships that change frequently. Nothing like the commitment to one partner that marriage, in part, represents - not just the *term* "marriage".

2) A life partner, a good match, loving person, faithful person who I share my life with (be it called marriage/common law or whatever) and with whom have a mutual commitment.


I see that as the real choice. For me I pick number 2 hands down. Besides that, my interests don't need lots of money - and I'd rather help loved ones out personally then just throw money around that I didn't even earn.

Wild Heart Like A Wolf said:

Society does not rely solely on one person with lots of my money.

I originally said I'd take the trillion dollars. But I'd change my mind now I think and go with marriage.

Click to expand...

Huzzah! We on Team Marriage welcome you with open arms!

ImperatorWall said:

I don't care about society now.

I care about individuals, but not society as a whole.

Click to expand...

That is sad. Remember this verse from Matthew:
"The second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

Hopefully your caring for individuals extends beyond those in your own circle.

K9_Trainer said:

I think you hit the nail on the head here.

I've never really understood the whole "money can't buy happiness" thing. Sometimse I think the attitude is just a coping mechanism for people who barely get by or who don't have enough to pursue their dreams. Choosing the money doesn't mean we don't need love or friendship. It just means that we want a different lifestyle than a marriage, which can be a hit or miss when it comes to happiness. If you've ever made somebody else truly happy, you'd know how much happiness that can bring yourself. With a trillion dollars, I could make a lot of people truly happy by fulfilling their wildest dreams.

Click to expand...

Well said!