Sell all that you have, give to the poor, and follow me

[Cernunnos]

Your options are all biased. There is a clear suggestion of material wealth in heaven in all of them. I am glad no one voted, as its a farce.

I agree about the bias. I am the first/ only so far vote for "no, I don't care about being rewarded in heaven"

My actions of faith aren't driven by a concern for the afterlife or rewards. . . what motivates me, is an understanding of Lordship and a sincere desire to please my Lord (in the present) and and understanding of Stewardship which is the purpose of God's rich blessings in my life. I have no possessions to sell, I have a wealth of possessions God has given me stewardship of.
Wise use of resources & good stewardship is to be rewarded see: Matthew 25:14-30

 

[aiki]

It is against the rules to insult the intelligence of another user on these forums. Kindly leave and never speak to me again.

Your problem may not be one related to intelligence but to knowledge. It is possible not to comprehend because you lack information in the area to which you're trying to speak. That is what seems to be your problem in this thread.

Selah.

 

[Extraneous]

Jesus didn't mean we should sell everything we own, but rather that we should share everything we own. We dont sell the clothes off our back and walk around naked. If we have more than we actually need and others have less than they need, then we should strive to give and become equal. (in my opinion) because thats what we see in Acts 4 and 2 Corinthians 8. This is also what it means to love others as yourself. (my opinion) I use my computer to fellowship in the Word. Its useful to me. However, i don't believe that its good to have a lot of materialistic things. I do have a lot of tools but whats a carpenter without tools? Christ was a carpenter. The computer is a tool as well. I don't have a lot of nice clothes, but i look for heavenly clothes. I don't always eat the best foods, but i look for bread from heaven. Im not perfect, and im surely not boasting, because the more you see in scripture, and the more you understand, the more you know that Grace is needed, because no one is good, especially yourself. However, we still do our best to remain sober and vigilant, staying awake and not sleeping. The Lord comes a s a thief, in the night.

 

[Extraneous]

Then again, He did say that if someone demands your coat to give him your shirt too. I'll need to think about that one.

 

[Cernunnos]

Then again, He did say that if someone demands your coat to give him your shirt too. I'll need to think about that one.

Or you could understand it in its cultural context, in that there was a tradition at the time of giving up one's outer garment as a form of collateral & getting it back after repayment. . . much as the oft misquoted "turn the other cheek" . . . giving the inner garment as well is a way of non-violently shaming the aggressor. The aggression in both cases is non-life-threatening & so a non-life-threatening response is just. ..

In our present-day culture, if someone demands your coat (shoes, watch, phone, wallet, etc) there is usually and expressed or implied threat of violence. Because I am responsible for more people than just myself, I am not able to comply with a threat of violence . . still Christian values, just in context rather than not

 

[Extraneous]

Or you could understand it in its cultural context, in that there was a tradition at the time of giving up one's outer garment as a form of collateral & getting it back after repayment. . . much as the oft misquoted "turn the other cheek" . . . giving the inner garment as well is a way of non-violently shaming the aggressor. The aggression in both cases is non-life-threatening & so a non-life-threatening response is just. ..

In our present-day culture, if someone demands your coat (shoes, watch, phone, wallet, etc) there is usually and expressed or implied threat of violence. Because I am responsible for more people than just myself, I am not able to comply with a threat of violence . . still Christian values, just in context rather than not

I'm not sure i can agree with your understanding. In the context of the Lords words he says "do not resist evil". Paying back a dept, or giving collateral is not evil. Why should i go with a fallible historians opinion of the historical content, instead of just simply obeying the command instead?

Lets not make this mistake-

Matthew 15:3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; [a] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— 6 then he need not honor his father or mother.’[c] Thus you have made the commandment[d] of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:

8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And[e] honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
9 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”[f]

 

[bill5]

"other"

Flawed poll choices (don't account for all possible answers)

 

[Nihilist Virus]

"other"

Flawed poll choices (don't account for all possible answers)

Ok, other. Can you give the yes or no with the explanation please?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Undoubtedly God. But how does he provide? By making money, houses, clothes etc materialise? No, he created the world and everything in it from nothing; he does not do that today. God would provide for me through other people. My food and shelter would come because he prompted people to provide it - whether they knew it was God who was prompting them or not.
So it might be that someone got a tax rebate and decided to give some of it to me so I could buy food. Or someone else might give some of their huge lottery win to allow me to buy new clothes. But if ALL the Christians had given up ALL their money, then it would be non Christians giving us this support.

How many Christians do you give money to because you respect the work they are doing and their decision to give up all their worldly goods in order to do it?

So you are saying that you doubt God would honor his word if everyone followed him in earnest?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Let me spell it out for you. All your choices are biased.

As I said, you're free to type up your own response. Instead of actually doing that, you prefer to complain about the choices available.

A choice that gives a negation of a biased statement such as 'regardless of reward' remains biased.

Just like a piece of cloth that is wet remains dry...?

To ascribe our reasoning for the yes and no and then use language which makes the person saying yes or no appear ridiculous, is biased.

Again, you are free to post your own response but you prefer to complain, accomplishing nothing.

All those options, regardless which wins, can be used to make us look silly, which is why people shouldn't vote.

So saying that you want to give away everything you own and follow Jesus regardless of whether or not you get rewarded makes you look silly? Please explain this.

Radook and Strong in Him have both given you the correct answers which of course does not fit any of the criteria in your poll.

Radrook did not even answer the question (he gave neither a yes nor a no). Strong in Him cited Radrook's answer as being the correct one, which is nonsensical as Radrook gave no answer. I am aware that Radrook said a lot of stuff, but he did not answer the question.

As to your last assertion, how do you know I am not a pennyless monk?

Your profile says you are a doctor. Do you work for free?

This is clutching at straws and shows lack of understanding of language use if anything. There are many instances in the Gospels of Jesus visiting peoples' homes etc. and no one is ever told to sell them.

Because they didn't ask what the rich young ruler asked. He asked, "Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" I do not know of anyone else asking Jesus that question, nor do I think Jesus would've brought this issue up had the man not asked.

Yes, I realize that most Christians do not believe that this is a salvation issue. Notice that I am not claiming here that it is. But Jesus did clearly say that he would be rewarded in heaven if he did this. So I am asking whether or not you guys care about what Jesus has to offer as an incentive, or if you don't feel you need the incentive because you're just an overflowing cup filled with love.

It is clear this is a specific lesson for a specific individual from the context. I take it you don't read the Bible much, but if you actually read a bit, you would see your position is untenable.

Well according to this logic there is little need to read the Bible much at all. The Epistle to Titus was addressed to Titus. You're not Titus and neither am I. I see no reason to read that epistle as it was addressed only to one person. Same goes for Timothy, Philemon, etc. The epistles to the Corinthians, Thessalonians, Romans, and etc are also specifically addressing a group of people and we have nothing to do with them. I see no reason to even bother reading anything beyond Acts, other than maybe Revelation.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I can't be a good soldier unless I first become a good citizen who knows what that we stand for, in Jesus. Jesus did not call His twelve, only to serve Him, only to preach or even do miracles. But >

"Then He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him and that He might send them out to preach" (Mark 3:14)

So, first we need to be with Jesus and one another, so we find out how to be and relate in love. Then we can represent Jesus right, while preaching Him.

You would be a good citizen if you gave everything you had to the poor. You would also be a good Christian. You would also be rewarded in heaven, or if not, at the very least we can know for sure that you won't be punished.

Giving everything away, wandering the continent and doing good works in the name of Jesus would not bar you from attending churches. There are more than enough churches in every town. You can go there several times a week while serving God in this manner. You can even continue to participate in these forums by visiting libraries.

 

[Strong in Him]

So you are saying that you doubt God would honor his word if everyone followed him in earnest?

No of course I'm not.

I'm agreeing with you that God provides; I'm asking you how he would provide. I don't believe it would be by making the things I needed just materialise; I have seen and read nothing which suggests that God continues to create things from nothing. So I am suggesting that he would provide for me through other people - as he usually does. You say that Jesus was broke and homeless - yet he wore a robe, (and we are told at the crucifixion that it was a seamless robe), he had food to eat and they had some money because John tells us in his Gospel that Judas looked after the purse. We are not told that God provided for them by creating what they needed from dust - God provided for them through other people. They were supported financially by women, Luke 8:4 and invited for meals with friends.

So if all Christians gave up all their possessions to follow him, then God would provide through other people. People like yourself would suddenly start saying "you know, those Christians are doing such a good job preaching the Gospel that I want to support them." YOU might not think it very likely that that would happen, but it would, because God always provides.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I agree about the bias. I am the first/ only so far vote for "no, I don't care about being rewarded in heaven"

My actions of faith aren't driven by a concern for the afterlife or rewards. . . what motivates me, is an understanding of Lordship and a sincere desire to please my Lord (in the present) and and understanding of Stewardship which is the purpose of God's rich blessings in my life. I have no possessions to sell, I have a wealth of possessions God has given me stewardship of.
Wise use of resources & good stewardship is to be rewarded see: Matthew 25:14-30

Your response is problematic in several ways:

1.) If you didn't like the choices available, you're free to provide your own here.

2.) You seem to suggest that one of Jesus' parables trumps something he said as a direct response to a question. You take the parable's instructions regarding money as literal, and yet you completely dismiss Jesus' plain words to a man seeking help.

3.) You say that you are called to exercise wise use of resources provided to you by God, and you also suggest that giving all of it away would not live up to this expectation. Therefore you are saying that Jesus was giving someone foolish advice.

 

[pgp_protector]

Yes, I want to make Jesus proud and gain riches in heaven.
Nothing I do can make Jesus Proud, and I don't do stuff for Riches in heaven:
Yes, I want to do it regardless of whether or not I will be rewarded in heaven.
Also I've got a wife and kids to feed, so selling everytihg would cause undue hardship on them.
No, I do not think I will be rewarded fairly in heaven.
Why would I sugesst that God is not fair?
No, I do not care about being rewarded in heaven.
Closest one, but It not about or not being rewared in heaven but supporting my family.
No, I do not believe that private property will exist in heaven.
Given Jesus states he's gone to make a place for me, sorta counters the no private property in heaven.

So None of the above.

 

[Strong in Him]

You would be a good citizen if you gave everything you had to the poor. You would also be a good Christian.

A good Christian - according to who?
Supposing God is asking a Christian to do something specific, like teach RE in schools, and also wants that person to do something specific with their money? If that Christian knows that this is what God wants them to do but says "no, I'm giving it all up to walk around the country preaching"; how is that being a good Christian? They would be disobeying God.

You would also be rewarded in heaven, or if not, at the very least we can know for sure that you won't be punished.

A Christian won't be punished for their sins. We believe that Jesus died for our sins and has taken our punishment. He is our Saviour.
Even if a Christian walks round the world when God had something else in mind for them and they miss his best plan for them - they won't be punished for it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Got a biblical source or just church tradition?

1 Corinthians 10 & 11

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Straw man.

If it's a straw man then it's your own. You're the one who said it.

Why do you say that?

Because if you believed that Christians owning things is a problem because of the reality of starving children, then you would believe anyone owning things is a problem. If you actually cared enough and though this way about the relationship between owning things and the problem of global poverty and starvation you wouldn't be on here talking about it to Christians, you'd have given up all your material possessions and dedicating your life to that purpose.

I have to conclude then that this point of starving children has nothing to do with this as an actual problem in the world and people aren't doing enough to help it, but rather to use it as a weapon to attack a group of religious people with whom you take issue.

Leading with "Seeing as how" prompts me to expect justification of the previous claim. Yet this is irrelevant.

With regards to this irrelevant item, I don't recall what I said exactly but I know I said that Saul was not interested in the Gospel before he became Paul. I didn't catch your reply.

It was leading into what follows it. Namely that you were rather explicit about your not caring to learn or understand Christians or Christianity, or to engage in meaningful dialogue. I didn't reply to your response in that aforementioned thread because your answer, quite frankly, made it clear that continuing the discussion was pointless.

My purpose here on these forums is to be the fire. I feel I've failed quite badly but what I'm trying to do is either burn up your faith or purify it. What I cannot stand is lukewarm Christianity. I much prefer that you are either hot or cold. I prefer that you wander the world doing good works in the name of Christ or else just live a sinful, indulgent life.

Survey says, that's not true.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[sparkle123]

This seemed like the work of a troll to me, but I voted because I'm bored and don't want to cook dinner just yet. I do take some pleasure in thinking the OP can't indict me as a hypocrite since I own no tv, car, or credit card, work only to make what I need in a human services field, ride a bike or walk, cook/hike/read vs go out, and generally don't fit in anywhere as a result. I don't consider myself better than as I struggle with alcohol, with depression & sloth, with pride, and anger--I just somehow don't struggle with a huge desire for material comfort, likely due to being a bit... mentally interesting. I travelled in leftist circles of voluntary homeless travelers and activists for a long time (neo-hippies, but punks hate to be called hippies) and they are the least materialistic folks you could meet, always helping some social cause or another... Also beset with some serious problems. So there's a lot more to being Christlike than throwing off all your material goods and helping folks in need--sometimes that's just about escaping responsibility or avoiding your own problems etc. We're all sinners. That's how I see it now. Goin to go cook dinner.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If it's a straw man then it's your own. You're the one who said it.



Because if you believed that Christians owning things is a problem because of the reality of starving children, then you would believe anyone owning things is a problem. If you actually cared enough and though this way about the relationship between owning things and the problem of global poverty and starvation you wouldn't be on here talking about it to Christians, you'd have given up all your material possessions and dedicating your life to that purpose.

I have to conclude then that this point of starving children has nothing to do with this as an actual problem in the world and people aren't doing enough to help it, but rather to use it as a weapon to attack a group of religious people with whom you take issue.



It was leading into what follows it. Namely that you were rather explicit about your not caring to learn or understand Christians or Christianity, or to engage in meaningful dialogue. I didn't reply to your response in that aforementioned thread because your answer, quite frankly, made it clear that continuing the discussion was pointless.

Survey says, that's not true.

-CryptoLutheran

Everyone here is complaining about the vote options being biased or unfair. You gave me two fair (???) choices and said to choose which one best represents me. My choices were to complain and dodge the question, provide a different choice, or simply answer it as it was asked. I find the most honest course of action to be the latter. Now I am being vilified for saying that something imperfect is the BEST description of me given the two available. You use this totally unbiased (lol) questionnaire to conclude that I have no interest in dialogue. I do not see how my answer here in this thread conflicts with that older post as I chose the most accurate of the two. It's like if I asked you if you sin because you hate Jesus or you sin because you don't care what he said, and I said to pick the most accurate one, and then I claim victory when you say you do not care what he said.

Reevaluate your logic.

Seeing as how I answered your question that did not allow for free response and here you dance around refusing to put forth one of the choices given to you, we see that you believe you're entitled to special treatment. Therefore you're the one uninterested in dialogue.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

1 Corinthians 10 & 11

-CryptoLutheran

But that was addressed to the Corinthian church 2000 years ago. I'm talking about a timeless, universal statement.