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

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm answering the poll about Rewards in heaven only.
I'm not worried about Rewards in heaven.

So then...

Yes, you want to want to do it regardless of whether or not you will be rewarded in heaven;

or,

No, you do not care about being rewarded in heaven.

 

[pgp_protector]

So then...

Yes, you want to want to do it regardless of whether or not you will be rewarded in heaven;

or,

No, you do not care about being rewarded in heaven.

Read my earlier post, already answered.

 

[Strong in Him]

I am confused on your position.

And I'm confused about why you're confused!

Before, you seemed to think it was a bad idea for all Christians to follow the suggestion set forth for the rich young ruler because then there would be no way for God to provide.

I didn't say that.
I said that it is not right to read about the rich young ruler and assume that Jesus' words to him about giving up his possessions applies to all Christians. That's not what this incident is about.

Now you seem to be saying that people like me would provide,

I don't think you read what I said.

I said;

This passage does not mean that God's command to all Christians is to give up their wealth. Money is to be our servant, not our master. If no Christian had money, who would support the missionaries, evangelists, clergy, pastoral work and so on and help maintain church buildings? The world? Would unbelievers support the work of the Gospel?

You answered;

God, maybe? I literally just quoted you the scripture.

My reply to that was,

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.

God provides - he provides THROUGH other people.
If all the Christians in the world had given up all their money and possessions, who would be the only people in the world with money? Those who weren't Christians and hadn't given it up. So who would now be the poor and who would be the people able to provide for the poor?

Can you please clarify your position? Will God provide for Christians if there are no other Christians to provide for them or not?

I've clarified it several times already. I don't get why you need me to do it again.

I have faith to believe that if God asks me to do something he will equip me to do it and provide for me while I am doing it.

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.

I think I've been fairly generous here. I have relaxed on the idea that you all should sell all that you own, but I am firm in my stance that no Christian should own a TV.

But it's your stance - your position.
There is no law against it, no church doctrine that teaches it is a sin, and there are no commands in Scripture about Christians owning some possessions and not others.

You say you think you've been generous; with respect, it's not up to you to make and lay down the rules and conditions

Yet you are not trying your absolute hardest to be a good Christian, so you are lukewarm.

Firstly, being a good Christian is not about "trying your absolute hardest". A Christian is someone who says "I have rebelled against God and nothing that I can do will get me to heaven; no amount of good deeds. But I believe Jesus died to save me from the consequences of sin, and I am putting my trust in him, to be my Saviour."
I am a Christian; I became one when I accepted Jesus. If I had died 10 minutes after I repented of my sins and asked Jesus to save me, I would have died a Christian - no matter how many bad things I had done beforehand.
Secondly, you don't know the first thing about me or who I am, never mind what I do.

Perhaps, but I am talking about the carrot in this thread, not the stick. Jesus did promise the rich young ruler rewards in heaven.

IF he gave up his riches - which were the most important thing in his life - and followed Jesus.

I It stands to reason that this offer is on the table for the rest of us.

If you believe in Jesus, accept him, put God first and receive eternal life; yes.
The offer is open to everyone; it's up to you if you take it up.
The gift, Romans 6:23, is offered to everyone; it's up to you if you receive it.

Are you simply uninterested, or do you think you will not be fairly compensated?

I have eternal life - so not being interested and not being compensated are not an issue.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Read my earlier post, already answered.

You said that there is another answer aside from the ones listed here, and that you did not care to say what it is.

That is NOT an answer.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And I'm confused about why you're confused!


I said that it is not right to read about the rich young ruler and assume that Jesus' words to him about giving up his possessions applies to all Christians. That's not what this incident is about.

Jesus, being God, already knew that the rich young ruler would decline the suggestion. So what was the point in the conversation? So that it could be written down and read by you. Yet you reject it, saying that it is intended only for the one guy. By that logic, you should reject everything Paul ever said. He never (or rarely) addressed Christians in general. He addressed specific people or specific churches. After all, you're not Philemon, are you?

But let's look at the offer Jesus is making the rich young ruler. Is it an offer that's on the table for us or not? You can reject the idea that this is a command for all of us, but are you really going to say that you will not get riches in heaven if you do what Jesus said to the rich young ruler? If not, why is the event even recorded at all? Also, you are free to choose "No, I do not think I will be rewarded fairly in heaven" or "Yes, I want to do this regardless of if I am rewarded in heaven."

If you are uninterested in a reward, it's either because you think it will be insufficient, or because the nature of the reward doesn't interest you, or because you don't think the reward exists.

If you believe there is another possibility (there isn't), you're free to post it here.

The "yes" is a true dichotomy, and the "no" is a true trichotomy.

The rest of what you said is off topic. It's my fault, I drove it that way. I apologize. Let's please focus on the topic: which choice represents you? If there isn't one, you're free to come up with an alternative. Just please don't dance around the issue: give me a yes or a no.

 

[Moral Orel]

If the money given from selling a television was put to use to help one child, and that was a choice I could make, I would make it. I don't need a television as badly as a child needs food, I can live without a television.

I think that challenging our western affluence is absolutely something the Church should be doing. Many years ago I listened to a speech given by Dr. Tony Campolo, and a very specific portion of it stuck with me, in which he tells of a speaking engagement he had at a women's ministry gathering in which a letter from a missionary speaking of the need of five thousand dollars for medicine and medical supplies was read. Tony was asked to pray that God would meet those needs, but he refused to pray. Instead he took out his wallet and took all the cash out and put it on the altar and told all the women there to do the same--they didn't want to. Eventually they reluctantly did, the money was counted and there was over 7,000 dollars, more than what was needed to help pay for the medicine and medical supplies. To which Dr. Campolo says,

"The sheer audacity of asking God for $5,000, when God has already provided more than $7,000."

To which he then goes on about the audacity of the Church to pray, "Lord provide, Lord provide" when, in fact, He has provided. The Church of Jesus Christ has the means to actually do something in addressing the lack of medicine and medical attention in communities across the world, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to care for the poor, the widow, and the orphan. But we don't.

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary's annual (I think?) report on global missions has a section on Christian finances. For 2015 the estimated global personal income of Christians was $42 trillion dollars (PDF link here). That's trillion with a t. Now, given that there are an estimated 2.3 billion Christians alive, for many--most--actual income is small. But for many income is large. But the point is this: The sheer resource capacity of the Christian Church is immense, and there is simply no excuse for how that much money can't produce better quality of life for the world's most impoverished people. There can be no excuse for the reality of millions of starving men, women, and children. Or communities without access to clean drinking water, clothing, education, proper medicine.

As much as the Church is doing to address these things, as she is called to do, she could be doing a whole lot more. And by she, I don't mean "other Christians" I most absolutely do include myself. The Church doesn't just have the responsibility, but the sacred duty to do as she has been commanded by her Lord for the poor and the hungry, and also to speak up and against the injustice and be critical against the comfort, affluence, and complacency of the Church in the midst of these things. The Church should be her own biggest critic.

-CryptoLutheran

See? I knew you were a bright guy. I think you sort-of-kind-of agree with NV, but his adversarial approach makes it a different argument all together. He wants to attack Christianity by saying they're all hypocrites, but the kinder meaning behind the argument is simply that people ought to do more when they can.

More specifically, do you agree that the verse about the young rich man, at least to an extent, applies to affluent Christians, not just that one person? What I mean is that it doesn't necessarily mean people should become homeless and jobless, but that all the extra luxury items ought to be sold for the sake of the poor?

 

[Tree of Life]

Is your name Titus? The epistle to Titus was meant for Titus, not you. Also I'd bet a paycheck that you're not Timothy or Philemon. You did not attend the churches at Corinth or Thessalonians two thousand years ago. Therefore, by your logic:

Jesus Paul told one rich young ruler person/church to sell all his possessions and follow him do X. What makes you think that Jesus Paul expects this from every person?

You did not answer my question.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You did not answer my question.

You didn't answer mine. Do you often come onto threads, ignore questions in the OP, and pose your own?

 

[ViaCrucis]

See? I knew you were a bright guy. I think you sort-of-kind-of agree with NV, but his adversarial approach makes it a different argument all together. He wants to attack Christianity by saying they're all hypocrites, but the kinder meaning behind the argument is simply that people ought to do more when they can.

More specifically, do you agree that the verse about the young rich man, at least to an extent, applies to affluent Christians, not just that one person? What I mean is that it doesn't necessarily mean people should become homeless and jobless, but that all the extra luxury items ought to be sold for the sake of the poor?

It should cause us to pause and take notice of our priorities. It should cause us to consider to what degree we are allowing our personal comfort to be a hindrance to our calling as Christ's people. To that end it doesn't just provide a lesson for the most affluent in the Church, but for all of us. It's part of the larger picture that gets painted in all three of the Synoptics: that Christ's call to come and follow Him is going to cost us. The way which Jesus lays before us is that hard and difficult path of discipleship, of service, of sacrifice. The cross is not the gateway to the better life, the long and difficult way always leads to the cross. It's why in my first post in this thread I quoted Bonhoeffer, because I can think of little more accurate than his statement that when Christ calls a man He bids him to come and die. The Christian life is constituted by all manner of deaths, the first death of the Christian being in the waters of Baptism, and every day from that day on it is the daily death of repentance. Repentance being not merely a ritualistic "I'm sorry", but our own mortification as we take seriously the damage of our own sins against God and neighbor, and cling only to mercy, only to the cross. It will be the lifelong death of our pride, the lifelong death of our ego, the lifelong death of our passions. It will be the daily uphill climb to Golgotha, from our first day until our final day.

That is made evident time after time throughout the Gospels, that's the way which Jesus offers the fishermen by the sea of Galilee, it's the way which Jesus offers the rich young man, it's the way which Jesus offers to everybody. In the Gospels the irony is that those who cling to their life shall lose it, but those who forsake it shall find it; that the way of the cross is real life. The reality of this is seen in the resurrection.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Strong in Him]

Jesus, being God, already knew that the rich young ruler would decline the suggestion. So what was the point in the conversation? So that it could be written down and read by you.

No.
The rich young ruler approached Jesus and asked him a question. It would have been incredibly rude and unhelpful if Jesus had said, "I'm not going to answer your question because you won't like what I have to say and I already know you're going to reject it." Jesus answered his question so that the young man would know the truth and have a chance to respond positively. He knew he wouldn't, but that didn't stop him giving that opportunity.
A bit like if I respond to a thread on this form saying that the trinity is false. I can read what the person is saying and may even understand why they believe what they do. I reply because they are wrong and because they have misunderstood Scripture. Sometimes if the thread runs to 20 or 30 pages, the OP is rejecting everything that I, and others, say and we are going round in circles, I might give up. I can try to correct someone who might have misunderstood a verse or two, but I can't change their deep held beliefs; only God can do that. But that won't stop me from trying to help the person understand or persuade them. Same with God - except that he loves them a million times more than I do and will keep on trying for the rest of their lives.

Yet you reject it, saying that it is intended only for the one guy. By that logic, you should reject everything Paul ever said. He never (or rarely) addressed Christians in general. He addressed specific people or specific churches. After all, you're not Philemon, are you?

I do not reject this story.
Either you didn't read the reply I gave to this a few posts back or you read it and didn't like it so want another answer.

But let's look at the offer Jesus is making the rich young ruler. Is it an offer that's on the table for us or not? You can reject the idea that this is a command for all of us, but are you really going to say that you will not get riches in heaven if you do what Jesus said to the rich young ruler?

It depends on what God is asking me to do.
He has given me some money and possessions; they are not mine, they are his. So if he says "give them up and sell everything", then - as long as he tells my husband the same thing - I will. If he says to me "I want you to give ...... to someone", then I will.
If I were to do that it would be because God had asked me, because he loves me and showed that love by sending Jesus to die for me and because I love him and want to obey him. Your poll options say nothing about obeying God because we love him. They do not speak of, or even hint at, personal relationship or obeying because we want to obey - all mention heavenly reward as a motive.

If you are uninterested in a reward, it's either because you think it will be insufficient, or because the nature of the reward doesn't interest you, or because you don't think the reward exists.

If you believe there is another possibility (there isn't), you're free to post it here.

There are other options;
Yes, I love God and want to obey him
Yes, eventually - I might struggle for a while to release my hold on all my possessions, and ask God to assure me that this is what he wants, but I'd do it.
No, I don't believe God is asking, or would ask, this of me.
No, I need my possessions more than God does; how would I live if I give everything away?
No, I don't believe God speaks to me or has any interest in my life.

The answer would still ultimately be yes or no, but as I said, you are focussing entirely on heavenly rewards as a motive for doing this. I don't believe that would be the motive for most Christians.

Just please don't dance around the issue: give me a yes or a no.

I have given you an answer already - it just doesn't fall into the yes/no category that you are demanding.

And incidentally, you say you don't understand my position; in your personal profile, under faith you have defined yourself as an atheist. An atheist is not someone who says "there is a God but I'm not interested"; an atheist's position is that there is no God. So if that is the case, if you know that there is no God, why are you on a Christian forum writing about heavenly rewards? The forum that this thread was originally in was for enquiring Christians and those with questions about the Christian faith. This is not a question about the faith - most of the time it sounds like an attempt to wind up, or discredit, Christians. You say you are "trying to be fire on this forum" - why? Why do you care about our faith if you believe it is misguided - i.e because you know there is no God?
And if you don't care, why don't you just say, "actually my purpose is to try to tie you all in knots so that I can show that your beliefs are false"?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No.
The rich young ruler approached Jesus and asked him a question. It would have been incredibly rude and unhelpful if Jesus had said, "I'm not going to answer your question because you won't like what I have to say and I already know you're going to reject it." Jesus answered his question so that the young man would know the truth and have a chance to respond positively. He knew he wouldn't, but that didn't stop him giving that opportunity.

Except Jesus was not above being rude, so I don't see your point. Also you do not answer the question, "Why is the event recorded in the Bible if it was a private conversation and the details do not apply to other people?"

A bit like if I respond to a thread on this form saying that the trinity is false. I can read what the person is saying and may even understand why they believe what they do. I reply because they are wrong and because they have misunderstood Scripture. Sometimes if the thread runs to 20 or 30 pages, the OP is rejecting everything that I, and others, say and we are going round in circles, I might give up. I can try to correct someone who might have misunderstood a verse or two, but I can't change their deep held beliefs; only God can do that. But that won't stop me from trying to help the person understand or persuade them. Same with God - except that he loves them a million times more than I do and will keep on trying for the rest of their lives.

Assuming God exists, the Trinity may well be an accurate assessment of his nature. That does not mean it is sensible, or that anything you say about it is actually correct, or that any human can even comprehend it. The Trinity may be accurate but the theoretical person you argue with may ALSO be justified in rejecting everything you say about it.

I do not reject this story.
Either you didn't read the reply I gave to this a few posts back or you read it and didn't like it so want another answer.

Let's not make straw men here.

I said you reject IT. IT is not referring to the story. Re-read. IT is referring to the advice/command. I said that according to you, IT is only intended for one guy. So I am correct in saying that you reject IT. You reject the advice/command given to the rich young ruler. I know this because you are making excuses as to why you are not doing IT.

It depends on what God is asking me to do.
He has given me some money and possessions; they are not mine, they are his. So if he says "give them up and sell everything", then - as long as he tells my husband the same thing - I will. If he says to me "I want you to give ...... to someone", then I will.
If I were to do that it would be because God had asked me, because he loves me and showed that love by sending Jesus to die for me and because I love him and want to obey him. Your poll options say nothing about obeying God because we love him. They do not speak of, or even hint at, personal relationship or obeying because we want to obey - all mention heavenly reward as a motive.

This is false. Correct it please. I DO NOT MENTION HEAVENLY REWARDS AS A MOTIVE IN ALL CHOICES.

I find this false representation of my words especially troubling after you had just gotten through accusing me of the following:

Either you didn't read the reply I gave to this a few posts back or you read it and didn't like it so want another answer.

There are other options;
Yes, I love God and want to obey him

What does that have to do with the topic at hand? This is your way of trying to weasel out of it by saying that you are obeying God AND keeping your wealth for yourself.

You left out this part of what I said:

But let's look at the offer Jesus is making the rich young ruler. Is it an offer that's on the table for us or not? You can reject the idea that this is a command for all of us, but are you really going to say that you will not get riches in heaven if you do what Jesus said to the rich young ruler? If not, why is the event even recorded at all?

You deliberately redact that from what I said so you don't quote it, and you also don't address it, and then you draft this response accordingly.

If you DO think the offer is on the table for YOU, then you have all the choices available to you that you need.

If you DO NOT think the offer is on the table for YOU, then you can still vote, "No, I do not think I will be rewarded fairly in heaven."

Again, all choices you need have been provided.

Yes, eventually - I might struggle for a while to release my hold on all my possessions, and ask God to assure me that this is what he wants, but I'd do it.

That's still in line with the second choice. Notice that the question is asking, "SHOULD you sell all that you own...?" So even if you want to slip in this part about struggling and how you want to eventually do it, we still see that yes, you SHOULD do it. Again, you are provided all the choices you need.

No, I don't believe God is asking, or would ask, this of me.

Then why was it recorded in the Bible?

And again, if it isn't being asked of you, you still MAY or MAY NOT be rewarded for doing it. If you think you won't be rewarded, then you answer, "No, I do not think I will be rewarded fairly in heaven." If you do think you will be rewarded, but still don't want to do it, then you answer, "No, I do not care about being rewarded in heaven."

AGAIN, all of the choices are covered.

No, I need my possessions more than God does; how would I live if I give everything away?

Matthew 6:25-34 says,

25“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?

28“And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.


Or was that also meant for someone else and not for you?

No, I don't believe God speaks to me or has any interest in my life.

So in other words... you do not think you will be rewarded fairly.

The answer would still ultimately be yes or no, but as I said, you are focussing entirely on heavenly rewards as a motive for doing this. I don't believe that would be the motive for most Christians.

This is false. Correct it please. I DO NOT MENTION HEAVENLY REWARDS AS A MOTIVE IN ALL CHOICES.

I have given you an answer already - it just doesn't fall into the yes/no category that you are demanding.

You've squirmed, you've weaseled around a bit, but you haven't given an answer.

And incidentally, you say you don't understand my position; in your personal profile, under faith you have defined yourself as an atheist. An atheist is not someone who says "there is a God but I'm not interested"; an atheist's position is that there is no God.

WRONG.

Imagine a gumball machine. Would you say there are an odd or even number of gumballs in there? You seem to be giving an answer that affirms, say, even. I reject this but that does not mean I am affirming that the amount is odd.

An atheist does not say God does not exist, but that they are simply not convinced that God exists.

So if that is the case, if you know that there is no God, why are you on a Christian forum writing about heavenly rewards?

I abhor lukewarm Christianity and I want you to be either hot or cold. I prefer that you either devote your life to God with all sincerity and try your absolute hardest to live a holy life, or else simply live a self-serving, indulgent life. Owning a TV that causes you to stumble in your faith, a TV that does not glorify God, a TV that could feed a starving child, is NOT trying your absolute hardest to live a holy life.

The forum that this thread was originally in was for enquiring Christians and those with questions about the Christian faith. This is not a question about the faith - most of the time it sounds like an attempt to wind up, or discredit, Christians.

So according to your definition of atheism, and according to what you say here, atheists should not be allowed to participate in apologetics... but apologetics without atheists is like Ghostbusters with no ghosts. Your facts are not entirely straight.

You say you are "trying to be fire on this forum" - why? Why do you care about our faith if you believe it is misguided - i.e because you know there is no God?

Again, I don't "know" there is no God. Why am I here, though? Or why do I care? I am appalled at the idea of lukewarm Christians shuffling to the voting polls and trying to impose Christian ideals on this nation such as the repugnant thought that churches should receive emergency 911 aid despite not paying a cent of taxes while those same Christians do not exercise the love of Christ in their lives but instead are hateful and spiteful. If they actually lived by the words of Christ, this would be a FAR better nation. If they voted for things that did not overwhelmingly favor the church, this would be a FAR better nation.

And if you don't care, why don't you just say, "actually my purpose is to try to tie you all in knots so that I can show that your beliefs are false"?

See above.

 

[Strong in Him]

Except Jesus was not above being rude, so I don't see your point. Also you do not answer the question, "Why is the event recorded in the Bible if it was a private conversation and the details do not apply to other people?"


Assuming God exists, the Trinity may well be an accurate assessment of his nature. That does not mean it is sensible, or that anything you say about it is actually correct, or that any human can even comprehend it. The Trinity may be accurate but the theoretical person you argue with may ALSO be justified in rejecting everything you say about it.


Let's not make straw men here.

I said you reject IT. IT is not referring to the story. Re-read. IT is referring to the advice/command. I said that according to you, IT is only intended for one guy. So I am correct in saying that you reject IT. You reject the advice/command given to the rich young ruler. I know this because you are making excuses as to why you are not doing IT.


This is false. Correct it please. I DO NOT MENTION HEAVENLY REWARDS AS A MOTIVE IN ALL CHOICES.

I find this false representation of my words especially troubling after you had just gotten through accusing me of the following:

Either you didn't read the reply I gave to this a few posts back or you read it and didn't like it so want another answer.



What does that have to do with the topic at hand? This is your way of trying to weasel out of it by saying that you are obeying God AND keeping your wealth for yourself.

You left out this part of what I said:

But let's look at the offer Jesus is making the rich young ruler. Is it an offer that's on the table for us or not? You can reject the idea that this is a command for all of us, but are you really going to say that you will not get riches in heaven if you do what Jesus said to the rich young ruler? If not, why is the event even recorded at all?

You deliberately redact that from what I said so you don't quote it, and you also don't address it, and then you draft this response accordingly.

If you DO think the offer is on the table for YOU, then you have all the choices available to you that you need.

If you DO NOT think the offer is on the table for YOU, then you can still vote, "No, I do not think I will be rewarded fairly in heaven."

Again, all choices you need have been provided.



That's still in line with the second choice. Notice that the question is asking, "SHOULD you sell all that you own...?" So even if you want to slip in this part about struggling and how you want to eventually do it, we still see that yes, you SHOULD do it. Again, you are provided all the choices you need.



Then why was it recorded in the Bible?

And again, if it isn't being asked of you, you still MAY or MAY NOT be rewarded for doing it. If you think you won't be rewarded, then you answer, "No, I do not think I will be rewarded fairly in heaven." If you do think you will be rewarded, but still don't want to do it, then you answer, "No, I do not care about being rewarded in heaven."

AGAIN, all of the choices are covered.



Matthew 6:25-34 says,

25“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?

28“And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.


Or was that also meant for someone else and not for you?



So in other words... you do not think you will be rewarded fairly.



This is false. Correct it please. I DO NOT MENTION HEAVENLY REWARDS AS A MOTIVE IN ALL CHOICES.

You've squirmed, you've weaseled around a bit, but you haven't given an answer.



WRONG.

Imagine a gumball machine. Would you say there are an odd or even number of gumballs in there? You seem to be giving an answer that affirms, say, even. I reject this but that does not mean I am affirming that the amount is odd.

An atheist does not say God does not exist, but that they are simply not convinced that God exists.



I abhor lukewarm Christianity and I want you to be either hot or cold. I prefer that you either devote your life to God with all sincerity and try your absolute hardest to live a holy life, or else simply live a self-serving, indulgent life. Owning a TV that causes you to stumble in your faith, a TV that does not glorify God, a TV that could feed a starving child, is NOT trying your absolute hardest to live a holy life.



So according to your definition of atheism, and according to what you say here, atheists should not be allowed to participate in apologetics... but apologetics without atheists is like Ghostbusters with no ghosts. Your facts are not entirely straight.



Again, I don't "know" there is no God. Why am I here, though? Or why do I care? I am appalled at the idea of lukewarm Christians shuffling to the voting polls and trying to impose Christian ideals on this nation such as the repugnant thought that churches should receive emergency 911 aid despite not paying a cent of taxes while those same Christians do not exercise the love of Christ in their lives but instead are hateful and spiteful. If they actually lived by the words of Christ, this would be a FAR better nation. If they voted for things that did not overwhelmingly favor the church, this would be a FAR better nation.


See above.

Sorry but I'm not going to continue with this thread.

I've told you what the incident with the rich young ruler was about; you won't accept it and accuse me of trying to get round Jesus' words and hoard my money.
I've told you that if God asked me to give up all my possessions, I would, and I know that he'd provide for me; you seemed to ignore that and asked me to clarify my position.
I've tried to explain what I believe and answer your questions; you say I'm not "trying very hard to be a good Christian", called me lukewarm, and accused me of squirming and trying to get round the issue.
I apologise for making the mistake of saying that all your options mentioned heavenly rewards, but there's no need to shout at me or accuse me of deliberately misrepresenting your words - especially when you've just called me lukewarm and implied that I am not a good Christian.

So you can think what you like. I'm not voting in your poll, have said why and my answers and reasons are there for you to read, or not.
Have fun.

 

[Tree of Life]

Is your name Titus? The epistle to Titus was meant for Titus, not you. Also I'd bet a paycheck that you're not Timothy or Philemon. You did not attend the churches at Corinth or Thessalonians two thousand years ago. Therefore, by your logic:

Jesus Paul told one rich young ruler person/church to sell all his possessions and follow him do X. What makes you think that Jesus Paul expects this from every person?

No. My name is not Titus and the New Testament was not written to me. This does not mean that the New Testament has no meaning for me. But what it means for me is not necessarily identical to what it meant for the historical or the reading audience. So Paul's words to Titus had a particular meaning for him that may or may not be identical to what Paul's words to Titus mean for me. This is just basic hermeneutics.

So let's turn our attention to the words in question in the OP. Jesus' words to one rich young ruler were "Go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and come, follow me." After establishing what these words meant for him we can then ask if they have any meaning for us. But you've got to do some hermeneutical work there. If you think that these words have an identical or similar meaning for me then you must demonstrate how these words spoken to one person have identical meaning for all.

Based on the options available in your poll, it would appear that your hermeneutics are not as nuanced or delicate as they should be. So, to answer your question, I do not think that these words directed to this one man have identical meaning for every person who desires to follow Jesus. I'll give at least one reason for this: Jesus did not issue this call to every person. There are some, like the healed demoniac, who desire to come with Jesus and leave everything, and yet Jesus calls them to stay in their hometown and tell others about what the Lord has done for them. If Jesus' words to the rich ruler were meant to be understood universally then this would be a contradiction.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Surely a married man with children of his own would be expected to care for his family first and foremost. Having a surplus of money and assets that he could trade would be good way of protecting the well being of those he is responsible for.

...So I would vote no. At least not necessarily. But not for any of the three reasons stated in the pole. But because being a husband and a father is a seperate kind of calling from God altogether.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Also, Jesus was not a dad or a husband. So surely we can't all follow that example.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Sorry but I'm not going to continue with this thread.

I've told you what the incident with the rich young ruler was about; you won't accept it and accuse me of trying to get round Jesus' words and hoard my money.
I've told you that if God asked me to give up all my possessions, I would, and I know that he'd provide for me; you seemed to ignore that and asked me to clarify my position.

Perhaps God is calling you to do this through my words. Why else are you on this thread?

I've tried to explain what I believe and answer your questions; you say I'm not "trying very hard to be a good Christian", called me lukewarm, and accused me of squirming and trying to get round the issue.

Then help my understanding of how a good Christian can own a TV. It rarely offers something that glorifies God and often it calls you to sin. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. Combine this with the fact that your TV can feed ?? children for ?? days and it is quite clear that no good Christian can own a TV.

I apologise for making the mistake of saying that all your options mentioned heavenly rewards, but there's no need to shout at me or accuse me of deliberately misrepresenting your words - especially when you've just called me lukewarm and implied that I am not a good Christian.

When you accuse me of either not reading what you have to say or else rejecting your answer and drilling you for another, I tend to assume that you must've surely read what I put forth - especially considering that it's just five sentences. So imagine my incredulity when you say something so blatantly false as, "All of the choices imply there is some kind of heavenly reward."

So you can think what you like. I'm not voting in your poll, have said why and my answers and reasons are there for you to read, or not.
Have fun.

OK. Good luck when you stand before God and he asks you the same things I'm asking now.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No. My name is not Titus and the New Testament was not written to me. This does not mean that the New Testament has no meaning for me. But what it means for me is not necessarily identical to what it meant for the historical or the reading audience. So Paul's words to Titus had a particular meaning for him that may or may not be identical to what Paul's words to Titus mean for me. This is just basic hermeneutics.

Here's hermeneutics 101:

1.) We are on this planet as a test to see if we accept Christ or not
2.) If God wants us to be saved, he will give us all the chance to at least understand the rules
3.) God wants us to be saved
4.) God made some people just plain stupid
5.) Therefore, God made the Bible easy to understand
6.) Hence, the Bible is simple

So for you to twist everything around, suggesting that everything is so complicated, suggesting that we should invest in a scholarly dissection of Christ's words to find an excuse to disobey them, is not consistent with childlike faith.

So let's turn our attention to the words in question in the OP. Jesus' words to one rich young ruler were "Go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and come, follow me." After establishing what these words meant for him we can then ask if they have any meaning for us. But you've got to do some hermeneutical work there. If you think that these words have an identical or similar meaning for me then you must demonstrate how these words spoken to one person have identical meaning for all.

Let's just assume for the moment that theology is a complicated, messy web like you suggest. It still does not even affect this scenario you have before you.

Did Christ mean for this offer he made to the rich young ruler to be on the table for all of us?

Suppose yes. Then your choices are available in the poll.

Suppose no. Then you still have all the choices except the first one. They all actually still apply.

As mentioned before, these choices are exhaustive. If you disagree, you're free to provide your own.

Based on the options available in your poll, it would appear that your hermeneutics are not as nuanced or delicate as they should be.

You need to justify complicated theology by refuting the six-point logical syllogism above.

So, to answer your question, I do not think that these words directed to this one man have identical meaning for every person who desires to follow Jesus.

May I ask why these words were recorded then?

I'll give at least one reason for this: Jesus did not issue this call to every person. There are some, like the healed demoniac, who desire to come with Jesus and leave everything, and yet Jesus calls them to stay in their hometown and tell others about what the Lord has done for them. If Jesus' words to the rich ruler were meant to be understood universally then this would be a contradiction.

Actually it wouldn't necessarily be a contradiction. Since the healed demonaic was willing to forsake everything to follow Jesus, perhaps Jesus was satisfied with that and permitted him to resume his normal life. And again, even if you want to say that the offer made to the rich young ruler is not on the table for us, then I will take that to mean you should vote for the third choice.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Surely a married man with children of his own would be expected to care for his family first and foremost. Having a surplus of money and assets that he could trade would be good way of protecting the well being of those he is responsible for.

...So I would vote no. At least not necessarily. But not for any of the three reasons stated in the pole. But because being a husband and a father is a seperate kind of calling from God altogether.

Do you own a TV, golf clubs, a pool table, or other items which do not serve a functional purpose and which do not glorify God?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Do you own a TV, golf clubs, a pool table, or other items which do not serve a functional purpose and which do not glorify God?

I own a TV.

 

[Tiny Bible]

That edict from Christ would sure put Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen, viper eyes pastor, and T.D Jakes, to name just a few into a bad light.
As it should.
It's a different time now. One could do that and be homeless from the start hoping to rise up to survive through charity. However, it's largely not do-able today. And even metaphorically it isn't either.