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

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT ON

Moving thread from Exploring Christianity to Christian Apologetics as per SOPs.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

Obviously he didn't literally mean everything. But you shouldn't have a TV. The best things on will be fake Christians like Pat Robertson or Robinson or whatever his name is. Joel Osteen. Etc. The temptations to sin from TV far outweigh any positives.

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. Why on earth own a TV?

 

[katerinah1947]

Vote!

Hi,

You have not asked any questions that I can answer.


They are all flawed for some reason. When working with the poor in real life, giving the poor all you have will end in your early death, which will be rewarded by God for your act.

The poor will always be with us. We were told that.

The Bible also says to go with knowledge. Lots of street people that I work with are not fixable in the conventional sense.

And I was told when first starting out that I should pick an exit strategy for when I would get out of that work.

I was sure that would not be needed. It was.

Just a thought, that to do that admirable thing, may be something you can do and are called to do, and it may be that you are only supposed to help out, like The Catholic Church and maybe other churchs teach.

I am all for extreme responses to God. I just do not and cannot normally know What God Is Calling you To Do.

I think the Catholic way, is 5%, if you can, to the church and 5% to others, if you can, but you are an other in your health and welfare also, so some of that 5% to others is in maintaining yourself, so you can work for God. Thus medical and dental bills are part of that 5%, again if you can.

That is what I was taught.

LOVE,

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

Nobody stopped you from offering your own response. I didn't hold a gun to your head.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

Vote:

1.) Is it mandatory to support your chosen church in some way in secret if possible?

2.) Is it mandatory to help out others in need in some way in secret if possible?

3.) Is it mandatory to take care of yourself first, last and always rather than others or your church?

4.) Did God lie when he said giving to the poor, is giving to God, and He will repay you?

I would think you could ask help from others here to refine your questions, if no one likes the questions that you have here.

LOVE,

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

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.



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



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



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.



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.



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



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.



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.

First, I did say that Radook and Strong in Him gave you answers. I agree with theirs. The answer to your question need not be a yes or no.

Second, your complaint about wet and dry is silly and shows you don't understand. I said a biased statement, a wet cloth is not a biased statement.

Third, your logic on Titus etc. is disengenuous. A. those are pastoral letters. B. this piece is from the gospel.

I am done with this thread, as you are not really being serious.

 

[Moral Orel]

Let's pretend for a moment that I own a television. So children are starving to death because I own a television? That's the reason?

NV doesn't have a great way of not coming off as confrontational, so I'd like to ask you (because you seem like a bright guy) the same question, but in a better way. I don't want to assume anything about your financial/material wealth situation, but the TV is a good hypothetical, so I'll stick with that.

Is it wrong to be even a little bit selfish? If you choose to continue owning a television when you could sell it for $50 and feed just one starving kid in Africa for a year, is that not selfish? No, of course children aren't put in that situation because you chose to own a TV, but you would have the ability to lift a kid out of that situation (even if only temporarily) by giving up something that you own. Is choosing entertainment for yourself over the other option selfish? If not, why?

 

[Tree of Life]

The available options show a lack of understanding of how to read Scripture. Jesus told one rich young ruler to sell all his possessions and follow him. What makes you think that Jesus expects this from every person?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

I am confused on your position. 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. Now you seem to be saying that people like me would provide, somewhat like this story:

Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him."

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

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.

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. I'll make a list to copy/paste because I seem to have to point this out quite often:

1.) There is little, if any, genuine Christian content. And there is an ample source of temptation to sin; if you should "cut your hand off when it causes you to sin," then what do you reckon you should do with your TV?
2.) Even if you have so many parental blocks that your TV cannot cause you to sin, it still does not glorify God; your time would be better spent praying, fasting, or reading the Bible instead of watching the TV.
3.) Your TV could feed starving children if you simply sell it and send the money away. Jesus said that whatsoever you do unto the children, you do unto him, so why not feed the starving children? Do you think that Jesus watches you owning your TV and thinks to himself, "There goes my faithful servant"?

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.

Yet you are not trying your absolute hardest to be a good Christian, so you are lukewarm. Do you know Jesus' position on lukewarm Christians?

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.

Perhaps, but I am talking about the carrot in this thread, not the stick. Jesus did promise the rich young ruler rewards in heaven. It stands to reason that this offer is on the table for the rest of us. Are you simply uninterested, or do you think you will not be fairly compensated?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

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.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

I would say "Well done, good and faithful servant" except for your deliberately rude tone. I'm not sure why you think your contribution is enriched by thinking out loud that I might be a troll or by suggesting that I enjoy calling Christians hypocrites.

P.S., may I assume you do not own a computer but do participate in these forums via a library?

 

[pgp_protector]

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 is, I'm not worried about it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Nobody stopped you from offering your own response. I didn't hold a gun to your head.

-CryptoLutheran

You completely dodged my questions and came at me with that gem. I consider this to be your admission of defeat.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

There is, I'm not worried about it.

We are talking about following Jesus and getting rewards in heaven, but the topic is not worth a few moments of consideration?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi,

Vote:

1.) Is it mandatory to support your chosen church in some way in secret if possible?

No, you simply will receive your reward here on earth if you sound a trumpet and support your church before men.

2.) Is it mandatory to help out others in need in some way in secret if possible?

No, same as 1.).

3.) Is it mandatory to take care of yourself first, last and always rather than others or your church?

No... why would that be mandatory?

4.) Did God lie when he said giving to the poor, is giving to God, and He will repay you?

Presumably not, but I am atheist.

I would think you could ask help from others here to refine your questions, if no one likes the questions that you have here.

LOVE,

They don't like the questions because it shows them that they have no good reason for keeping their possessions, or at least their TVs. Also your poll is off topic, irrelevant, and is more of a questionnaire than a poll.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

First, I did say that Radook and Strong in Him gave you answers. I agree with theirs. The answer to your question need not be a yes or no.

I asked if something should be done or not. It is a flat yes or no answer. Justification is encouraged, but it is ultimately a yes or a no. At the MOST, you can claim that the yes or no depends on certain factors, and then you can list those factors and say, "Under these conditions, yes; under these conditions, no." They did not do any of this. They tried to steer the conversation off topic because they prefer their TVs that they can see over their rewards in heaven that they cannot see.

Second, your complaint about wet and dry is silly and shows you don't understand. I said a biased statement, a wet cloth is not a biased statement.

Then please explain what was biased.

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.

Third, your logic on Titus etc. is disengenuous. A. those are pastoral letters. B. this piece is from the gospel.

So what we needed was for Jesus to sit down, put quill to parchment and write:

Jesus, Son of God, redeemer of mankind, to the rich young ruler. If you want to inherit the kingdom of God, sell all that you own, give to the poor, and follow me. This is an epistle written to you, but others are intended to follow it.

I am done with this thread, as you are not really being serious.

Isn't it against the rules to make such an accusation to another user? At the very least it's quite rude.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The available options show a lack of understanding of how to read Scripture. Jesus told one rich young ruler to sell all his possessions and follow him. What makes you think that Jesus expects this from every person?

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?

 

[ViaCrucis]

NV doesn't have a great way of not coming off as confrontational, so I'd like to ask you (because you seem like a bright guy) the same question, but in a better way. I don't want to assume anything about your financial/material wealth situation, but the TV is a good hypothetical, so I'll stick with that.

Is it wrong to be even a little bit selfish? If you choose to continue owning a television when you could sell it for $50 and feed just one starving kid in Africa for a year, is that not selfish? No, of course children aren't put in that situation because you chose to own a TV, but you would have the ability to lift a kid out of that situation (even if only temporarily) by giving up something that you own. Is choosing entertainment for yourself over the other option selfish? If not, why?

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

 

[ViaCrucis]

I consider this to be your admission of defeat.

Cool story.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[pgp_protector]

We are talking about following Jesus and getting rewards in heaven, but the topic is not worth a few moments of consideration?

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