This is topic "What Jesus plainly meant was it's impossible for rich people to get into heaven" in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
quote:But there never was such a gate in Jerusalem. And a kneeling camel can't get through any gate, since camels can't, or at least won't, move forward on their knees. What Jesus plainly meant was it's impossible for rich people to get into heaven, and Beecher couldn't deliver that message and keep his job.
Does this reading agree with other people's interpretations of the Bible? Is OSC just being rather loose with his use of "rich"? I haven't actually thought about the concept enough to decide whether I agree or disagree with it. My initial reaction is that the mere state of being rich does not imply that one is immoral. There are some great examples of very wealthy individuals who donate a lot of money to charity and end up devoting their lives to a charitable cause. I would say that being rich is not something to avoid but rather that charity is something to always keep in mind. Having a lot of money and investing it properly could actually provide for more charitable value in the long run. Of course, the logic of that last statement is easily abused (ex: I'll hoard my money "until later").
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
By many standards virtually every American, and especially a successful author like Card, would be considered "rich." Given that, I'm not sure why Card would insist that this is a correct interpretation. Heck, several of his church leaders are rich even by American standards.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Well, I'm assuming OSC tithes. I thought that was the loophole.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
After he says it's as easy for a rich guy to get to heaven as it is to get a camel through a needle's eye, he goes on to say that "nothing is impossible with God." So yeah, what Card said is what Jesus's point was, but he [Jesus] later implies that God can reconcile the sins of a wealthy man, as he can any sin.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I pretty much agree with OSCs interpretation here, although I think he is guilty of hyperbole. Jesus himself follows the story by saying that with God all things are possible so perhaps it is more accurate to say that "What Jesus plainly meant is that it would take a miracle for rich people to get into heaven".
The bible does not support the rationalization that its OK for you to accumulate wealth because then you can do more for charity. In fact Jesus specifically says that the widow's "mite' dwarfed the donations of all the wealthy.
I have a hard time "admiring" rich people who give big highly publicized donations to charity for two reasons.
1. Its not like the Bill Gates foundation (for example) is giving away anything Bill Gates will actually miss. The Rich who give to charity are giving of their excess. They will never actually go without anything they could ever desire because of the charitable contributions they make. I'm actually more impressed by the poor woman in the Bronx who gave my brother change for the bus than by the millions donated by the Marriott's and Huntsman's of the world.
2. When I walk past the "Mary Gate building" or the "Huntsman Center" I am reminded of what Jesus taught about those who give to be seen of men. They already have their reward.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The Bible is all about how great it is to be oppressed, poor, meek, downtrodden, and so forth, because you're going to get yours in the NEXT life, since this one is such a downer.
It makes perfect sense for the powerful, rich, successful, to be painted as secret losers - they're basically the enemy of the poor, humble, hard-working, oppressed people.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Well said, The Rabbit.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:By many standards virtually every American, and especially a successful author like Card, would be considered "rich."
I think you may have an inflated idea of how much money a successful author typically makes. I don't know anything about the Card's finances, but most writers are very lucky to make enough to qualify as middle class. Very very few would be considered wealthy by western standards.
That said, you are correct that virtually every American would be considered rich in most of the world, a fact we should spend more time considering.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I imagine Card is doing better than "most writers" and is probably quite comfortable. I'm not suggesting that he lives in a mansion and owns a private jet, but I'd be surprised if he wasn't making well above the median US income level.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have no idea how much he makes and suspect that you are only speculating. He has said publicly on this forum that he doesn't make enough to feel his family is financially secure.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:2. When I walk past the "Mary Gate building" or the "Huntsman Center" I am reminded of what Jesus taught about those who give to be seen of men. They already have their reward.
The most poignant dilemma of the categorical imperative!
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I am in a similar position about how financially secure I feel and I make a lot more than the median income. But we're really arguing unnecessarily about a tangential subject unless he's truly living in poverty.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BTW, I'm pretty sure Beecher didn't invent the "eye=gate" explanation. I've found several secondary sources that date the explanation to the 9th century. Can't find the primary source, though.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:By many standards virtually every American, and especially a successful author like Card, would be considered "rich."
I think you may have an inflated idea of how much money a successful author typically makes. I don't know anything about the Card's finances, but most writers are very lucky to make enough to qualify as middle class. Very very few would be considered wealthy by western standards.
And then you have to consider that western standards are presumably not the ones you should apply, but rather those of Jesus's time. And by that standard, almost everyone in the world is quite rich these days, short of the most desperate genocide victims in Darfur. I think most Christians forget that Jesus's message was actually seriously radical and (as we would term it) communist. He called on people to give away everything they owned and "follow me". Tithing is a loophole invented to make the doctrine a bit more livable in a world which - oops - didn't actually end in the lifetimes of the disciples.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:By many standards virtually every American, and especially a successful author like Card, would be considered "rich."
I think you may have an inflated idea of how much money a successful author typically makes. I don't know anything about the Card's finances, but most writers are very lucky to make enough to qualify as middle class. Very very few would be considered wealthy by western standards.
And then you have to consider that western standards are presumably not the ones you should apply, but rather those of Jesus's time. And by that standard, almost everyone in the world is quite rich these days, short of the most desperate genocide victims in Darfur. I think most Christians forget that Jesus's message was actually seriously radical and (as we would term it) communist. He called on people to give away everything they owned and "follow me". Tithing is a loophole invented to make the doctrine a bit more livable in a world which - oops - didn't actually end in the lifetimes of the disciples.
Way to waste a coherent and well said statement. Right up until the "oops" you were entirely correct. Unfortunately you are wrong in believing that Jesus said the world would end within the lifetimes of the apostles.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:2. When I walk past the "Mary Gate building" or the "Huntsman Center" I am reminded of what Jesus taught about those who give to be seen of men. They already have their reward.
The most poignant dilemma of the categorical imperative!
I guess I just don't see the dilemma. It is possible to give large sums of money without asking for or accepting public recognition for it. A few years back I was involved in a University fund raising effort. I suggested that we might ask people to donate money for a hall named for one of our distinguished emeritis professors thinking that many people would be willing to donate to honor a revered mentor. I was wrong. I was told point blank by people who give large sums of money to Universities, that they do it to have their name on the hall not someone else's.
I suppose that experience more than anything has colored my opinion of big donors.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
And perhaps the phrase means, that the rich quite literally cannot get into heaven as all who enter the afterlife enter bereft of all possessions.
Or perhaps Jesus was saying that anybody who has accumulated wealth and cannot think of some good they might do with it, are clearly not heaven material.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I imagine Card is doing better than "most writers" and is probably quite comfortable.
I imagine OSC has done better than most writers, in that he's probably received more money than most. But I don't know anything about how he's doing now. I don't know what his expenses are or have been, or how much money he may give away to help others.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The Rabbit: Does the money do less good if it comes from someone who wants their name on something? Is the building less useful, the foundation less helpful, the scholarship less worthy?
Are your posts less meaningful, because you insist on associating them with your username?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: After he says it's as easy for a rich guy to get to heaven as it is to get a camel through a needle's eye, he goes on to say that "nothing is impossible with God." So yeah, what Card said is what Jesus's point was, but he [Jesus] later implies that God can reconcile the sins of a wealthy man, as he can any sin.
That's a good point and one that fits in with my personal observations of the world. It seems to me that adequate* generosity in wealthy individuals is an exception rather than the norm (that's just my impression, it may not be true).
* I know this is a cop-out qualifier I doubt that I can come up with a strict definition of what I would consider "adequate generosity" because there are so many potential loopholes and special circumstances. In general, if a person is making, say, $500,000 a year, then I would hope that he is generous enough to donate more than the standard 10% tithe.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I guess I just don't see the dilemma. It is possible to give large sums of money without asking for or accepting public recognition for it. A few years back I was involved in a University fund raising effort. I suggested that we might ask people to donate money for a hall named for one of our distinguished emeritis professors thinking that many people would be willing to donate to honor a revered mentor. I was wrong. I was told point blank by people who give large sums of money to Universities, that they do it to have their name on the hall not someone else's.
I suppose that experience more than anything has colored my opinion of big donors.
If I ever become rich then I hope that I exhibit the decency, kindness, and generosity of this man.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The point isn't whether or not the scholarships, buildings etc are more or less useful, its whether or not the donors are more or less worthy of my respect or more specifically rewards in heaven.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Unfortunately you are wrong in believing that Jesus said the world would end within the lifetimes of the apostles.
We have had this discussion before; you were extremely unconvincing.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Jesus comes back every day. He does leaf-blowing and groundskeeping. What are you guys talking about?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The Rabbit: Does the money do less good if it comes from someone who wants their name on something? Is the building less useful, the foundation less helpful, the scholarship less worthy?
Are your posts less meaningful, because you insist on associating them with your username?
I had actually typed up a response similar to yours but didn't post it. Remember that we are discussing how a charitable act reflects on the individual performing it as opposed to the benefit of the charitable act itself.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
My point is, why would you respect them less? Does their desire for some minor recognition for their work and donation make them a bad person? Does it make their donation less valuable than another, anonymous donation?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Unfortunately you are wrong in believing that Jesus said the world would end within the lifetimes of the apostles.
We have had this discussion before; you were extremely unconvincing.
I don't recall us discussing this point, are you certain? Or were you referring to Jesus comment that said in effect that, "Some here will not taste of death until the son of man comes in his glory?" Leading into the discussing about the immortality of John the beloved?
Even the Old Testament is very clear what conditions will exist in the end of days.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That is the discussion I referred to, yes. There is also the gestalt of Jesus saying things like "Take no thought for the morrow" and clearly generally expecting that they are in the end of days.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: That is the discussion I referred to, yes. There is also the gestalt of Jesus saying things like "Take no thought for the morrow" and clearly generally expecting that they are in the end of days.
That phrase was uttered to the disciples before Jesus sent them off to proselyte as missionaries. It's generally accepted to mean that God would provide the bare necessities for the disciples and that they should not worry about those things as they went about their duties.
Jesus certainly prophesied about the end of the nation of the Jews for the time being, and that certainly occurred around 100AD. But in terms of saying he would die, resurrect, go back to heaven and quickly come back to usher in the end of days does not seem to be a feature of his preaching.
As early as Paul, while many of the apostles were still alive, he clearly states that the end cannot come, "Accept there come a falling away first." There was no general falling away during Jesus' lifetime. John clearly details many of the events that would precede Christ's coming,
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The 'revelation' has nothing to do with what Jesus thought would happen. Nonetheless, both Paul and John clearly believe they are living in the last days; John even says the anti-Christ is already living.
And Jesus did prophecy that he would come back shortly after his death, within the lifetime of some of those he spoke to:
quote:Mark 14:62 Then Jesus answered, "I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven."
The 'you' is Caiphas the high priest. And again:
quote:Matthew 23:36 Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
No tricks with long-lived apostles here; 'this generation' plainly has not survived. And again (this is just before the 'some standing here' passage that we discussed earlier):
quote:Mark 9:1 Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
And speaking of sending the apostles out to missionarise:
quote:Matthew 10:23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to another. Amen, I say to you, you will not finish the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
I think they are pretty well done with the towns of Israel by now, no?
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
I'd rather not be poor, either way.
this statement (and its defence) makes me Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
We were recently reading from Luke 16:19-31 about the rich man and the beggar. One of the things Pastor Mark pointed out was that the beggar goes to Heaven with Abraham who was quite wealthy in his day. Money didn't keep Abraham out.
I think the problem is more what The Rabbit pointed out. People don't usually accumulate wealth by being the kinds of people willing to give it away. You usually have to love the money to get a lot of it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Mark 14:62:
Jesus was in front of a bunch of scribes, elders, etc. It wasn't just Caiaphas. I think, in the case of this verse, KoM, you're stretching things. This verse can be interpreted more than just one way-- for example, Steven DID see Christ at the right hand of God before his death, in the middle of a bunch of scribes, elders, etc.
I smile because you're being a biblical literalist. Whodathunkit?
Matthew 23:36:
Christ isn't talking about the second coming when he says 'These things.' Take the verse in context-- there are other interpretations than the one you're applying.
Mark 9:1 doesn't say what you've quoted. It says:
quote: And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
For Mormons, this is in reference to John the Revelator-- sounds like you and BB already discussed that, though.
Matthew 10:23
I don't know if they are done with the towns in Israel; Paul mentions that the gospel has been preached to every creature, though, so you might have a point here.
I *think,* however, that Jesus may have just been trying to say, "Look. We've got a short amount of time, so if someone doesn't want to talk to you, get the heck up and move on!"
It's in the inflection, bro.
EDIT: The KJV of the Bible has the verse in Matt. 10 slightly differently that what you've quoted:
quote:But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
It puts a little different spin on things.
[ April 03, 2008, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: Trying to walk around the points Scott already made.
Mark 14:62 Was spoken to the high priest in the presence of scribes and other scholars. I concede that it could be interpreted to mean when Christ comes again. But it can also just as easily be interpreted to mean that the high priest would die and see Jesus one day.
Matthew 23:36 This goes right back to my statement that Jesus prophesied extensively concerning the removal of the Jews from Jerusalem. The seige of Jerusalem certainly took place within a generation of that utterance. Take verses 37-39 of that same chapter.
quote:O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
Jesus is clearly renouncing affiliation with the temple and the unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem. He also clearly states that until a time comes that the Jews start to believe in Him generally, he will not come again to earth. Such a time has yet to come to pass.
Mark 9:1 does not say what you quoted. As Scott noted it was that statement we debated before.
Matthew 10:23. That is a very interesting verse that I have never noticed before. But recall that, "The Kingdom of Israel" does not indicate only Jerusalem and it's environs. 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel had already been scattered far across the globe hundreds of years previous. It's quite possible that even today, every city with decendants of Israelites have not yet been proselyted to.
Besides that interpretation, again Jesus uttered these words during the brief period he sent his disciples abroad in the land to be missionaries. Jesus could easily have been saying, "You won't have time enough to cover all the Israelite cities in the neighborhood before I come and call you back."
Not every reference of Jesus coming indicates the second coming. He came and went to alot of places.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [QB] Mark 14:62:
Jesus was in front of a bunch of scribes, elders, etc. It wasn't just Caiaphas. I think, in the case of this verse, KoM, you're stretching things. This verse can be interpreted more than just one way-- for example, Steven DID see Christ at the right hand of God before his death, in the middle of a bunch of scribes, elders, etc.
Not sure what you refer to here.
quote:Christ isn't talking about the second coming when he says 'These things.' Take the verse in context-- there are other interpretations than the one you're applying.
Mark 9:1 doesn't say what you've quoted.
Yes, fair enough to both points; what I should have pointed to was Matthew 24:35. Not sure how I got that mixed up with the Mark. But anyway, Matthew 24:35 does say "this generation shall not", etc, and it is really clear that Jesus is referring to the Second Coming.
quote:I *think,* however, that Jesus may have just been trying to say, "Look. We've got a short amount of time, so if someone doesn't want to talk to you, get the heck up and move on!"
I agree that this is what he is saying, yes. But I'm concerned with why Jesus thinks time is short: To wit, he thinks the end times are imminent. Plainly, they weren't. And all the Middle East was Christian a few hundred years after his death.
quote:EDIT: The KJV of the Bible has the verse in Matt. 10 slightly differently that what you've quoted:
quote:But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
It puts a little different spin on things.
I don't see the difference.
quote:But it can also just as easily be interpreted to mean that the high priest would die and see Jesus one day.
The phrase "coming in the clouds of heaven" does not lend itself to this interpretation, and is used elsewhere to signify the Second Coming.
quote:He also clearly states that until a time comes that the Jews start to believe in Him generally, he will not come again to earth. Such a time has yet to come to pass.
Well then, he is contradicting himself. For elsewhere he has stated that he shall come again very shortly. When I say, "Statement X is contradicted by the events", you do not really help your cause by showing it is also contradicted by statement Y!
quote:"The Kingdom of Israel" does not indicate only Jerusalem and it's environs. 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel had already been scattered far across the globe hundreds of years previous. It's quite possible that even today, every city with decendants of Israelites have not yet been proselyted to.
In the first place, that's ridiculous in this age of globalisation, unless you are claiming there are Israelite descendants in the jungles of Brazil. In the second place, it doesn't say anything about the "Kingdom of Israel"; it says "the cities of Israel". A city with three Israelite families hardly qualifies.
quote:Not every reference of Jesus coming indicates the second coming. He came and went to alot of places.
Read it again: "till the Son of Man be come". You would suggest that this refers to a mundane walking into a city?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You would suggest that because it's in King James English it has too much gravitas to be refering to a mundane event?
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: It makes perfect sense for the powerful, rich, successful, to be painted as secret losers - they're basically the enemy of the poor, humble, hard-working, oppressed people.
I read all of this thread so far and found only this I wanted to reply too. Ummm, could you not make chili go thru my nose again? It's a tad bit spicy.
I will grant that most of these poor oppressed people you speak of are hard working. But your statement was way too general to be true. We live in a society that expects handouts, but will do nothing to get them. I live in an area where being on the unemployment line is the norm. Not because no one will hire them, but because they can get money for not working. They use the excuse that no one is hiring, but I pass by a dozen places alone on my short drive to work looking for people to hire. Hard working my rear end.
Why not ask those who have the money what it took for them to get that far? The hours they put in, the will to push to go on. Oh, I know. The answer will probably ride along the lines of "Daddy gave them that money." Is this the case for all of them? I'm gonna bet not. In fact, I'm even willing to bet that most of those were held to higher standards than any of us here. Ever worring about failure because failure meant they lost everything. I'm not talking about the Paris Hilton's and stuff. Nah, not talking movie/tv celebs at all. They are a class of their own. Errrr, maybe I should say no class for some of them. And that's still a lot of hours and work on the set.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
You do realize of course (as one of a number of problems with your statement) that the Bible was not written for our present society?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It's worth pointing out that neither Romans nor Jews, nor anyone else at the time, practised capitalism. Anyone rich, at the time, had got that way by stealing it from someone else, by squeezing it out of serfs, slaves, or tenants - with rents and interests enforced by the army - or by inheriting from someone who used on of those two methods.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: Sorry this took awhile, my first response was eaten by teh intarwebs and I couldn't be bothered to type it again. Only sheer frustration with my research paper has given me the time to try again.
In regards to Matthew chapters 23 and 24. According to the manuscript of corrections Joseph Smith made both chapters have so many mistakes that it is printed twice in the Mormon canon. The KJV in it's normal place in the NT, and the more correct rendering in the Pearl of Great Price. Jesus clearly separates what will happen before the siege of Jerusalem, and what will happen before he comes again for the second time. The events are not portrayed as close together, as Christ again mentions that the gospel must be spread to all nations around the world first.
quote:The phrase "coming in the clouds of heaven" does not lend itself to this interpretation, and is used elsewhere to signify the Second Coming.
You are right that it is used to describe the second coming, but that does not mean it must only be interpreted that way.
quote:Well then, he is contradicting himself. For elsewhere he has stated that he shall come again very shortly. When I say, "Statement X is contradicted by the events", you do not really help your cause by showing it is also contradicted by statement Y!
This again goes back to drawing a distinction to when Christ speaks concerning the Jews being scattered from Jerusalem, and the nations of the world being arraigned against Israel in the last days and Christ suddenly coming. There are scriptures where Christ clearly says the gospel must be taught to all the nations of the world before he can come. That certainly could not have taken place in his lifetime or the lifetimes of the apostles.
quote:In the first place, that's ridiculous in this age of globalisation, unless you are claiming there are Israelite descendants in the jungles of Brazil. In the second place, it doesn't say anything about the "Kingdom of Israel"; it says "the cities of Israel". A city with three Israelite families hardly qualifies.
Umm...Are you aware that the Book of Mormon does claim to be a record of people whose descendants could very likely live in the jungles of Brazil?
Beyond that, there ARE many place where the gospel is still not taught nor heard. China, Indonesia, most of the Middle East to name a few areas.
quote:Read it again: "till the Son of Man be come". You would suggest that this refers to a mundane walking into a city?
Look up the phrase, "son of man" it is used many times in the NT and yes even as a mundane reference to Jesus as a lead in to a parable such as Mark 13:34, or Matthew 11:19 where He talks about the general disapproving sentiment accompanying his work.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
What about people born poor who become rich? The way I see it, the Bible paints the picture that it is a sin to be rich.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: According to the manuscript of corrections Joseph Smith made both chapters have so many mistakes that it is printed twice in the Mormon canon. The KJV in it's normal place in the NT, and the more correct rendering in the Pearl of Great Price.
A more cynical observation might be that Smith took the obvious opportunity when writing a manuscript nearly two thousand years after Christ promised to return within the lifetimes of the original witnesses to create a more satisfying explanation for why this promise had not been fulfilled in a timely fashion.
quote:The way I see it, the Bible paints the picture that it is a sin to be rich.
I absolutely agree. I don't think it's even slightly ambiguous about this.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: My point is, why would you respect them less? Does their desire for some minor recognition for their work and donation make them a bad person? Does it make their donation less valuable than another, anonymous donation?
Arguably, yes, it does. The beneficiary of annonymous contributions is the recipient of good fortune, and like anyone who has their share of good luck, they don't necessarily feel they have to change their course as a result of said luck; they just use that benefit to advance that course. And perhaps (hopefully) they feel a certain compassion and generosity in recognizing that not everyone is so blessed.
Someone who benefits from the scholarship of Mr. X or whose study or research comes from foundation X or company X becomes beholden to that person. They might feel they have an obligation towards their benefactor's cause or business. At the very least, they probably feel hypocritical to criticize their benefactor or their benefactors' business. How many computers do you think their are in a research lab named after Bill Gates that are running Linux? How can a researcher who gets a scholarship from Monsanto criticize bioengineered crops in good conscience?
At the risk of misparaphrasing Jesus, I think the basic point of his words was that someone who is caught up in worldly posessions- and in obtaining and keeping them- isn't spending their time in consideration of their spiritual life and good works.
And I kind of agree about tithing being a cop-out; it seems like the beginning of the road that led to indulgences and similar notions that the morality and spirituality were commodities to be purchased.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The new testament paints it as a sin to be rich, or at least to love money. It seems in my own experience that money doesn't just come to me unless I pursue it.
quote:You usually have to love the money to get a lot of it.
Yeah, like that.
But the bible as a whole, in the old testament anyway, treats wealth as a blessing.
The Book of Mormon shows how these ideas go together (and it actually is demonstrated in Judges, just not explained as clearly this way) that when people are humble and contrite, they are blessed with abundance. Then they begin to enjoy abundance and become proud, and then things get ugly again, and they are humbled...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:A more cynical observation might be that Smith took the obvious opportunity when writing a manuscript nearly two thousand years after Christ promised to return within the lifetimes of the original witnesses to create a more satisfying explanation for why this promise had not been fulfilled in a timely fashion.
Why do you suppose a more cynical view is closer to the truth? You could also argue that with so many people repelled by the idea of more scripture, (The Book of Mormon) it makes little sense to alienate even more Christians by deigning to suggest that the Bible itself needed correction.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Its hard to be a prophet/savior/messiah/whatever without new material Whether it is Christianity adding material to Judaism, Islam adding material to Christianity, Mormonism adding material to Christianity, the Taiping adding material to Christianity, adding more scripture has a long history. From a historical POV there is surely no shortage of potential candidates with new ideas for re-makes or re-imaginings of existing scripture. I would also argue that while new scripture could turn away hardcore adherents of the old faith, the new material could potentially open up access to a new population, whether unsatisfied adherents of the old or new converts finding a new and more local interpretation more appealing to their tastes. And if you can take advantage of the opportunity to correct holes in the existing scripture, why not?
Side-note: It will be interesting to see what will happen to Christianity as (or if) the number of converts in China or other Asian nations start to grow. Just as we got Mormonism, a variant of Christianity uniquely rooted in the American continents, it will be interesting to see if any (more) new variants of Christianity form with a unique root in Asia. (Interesting or depressing, depending on your POV I suppose)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I doubt that I can come up with a strict definition of what I would consider "adequate generosity" because there are so many potential loopholes and special circumstances. In general, if a person is making, say, $500,000 a year, then I would hope that he is generous enough to donate more than the standard 10% tithe.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I smile because you're being a biblical literalist. Whodathunkit?![[Wink]](wink.gif)