Should all Christians make a vow of poverty? [Archive]

MarekM

18th April 2009, 07:09 PM

There's one passage in the Bible that has made it incredibly difficult for me to believe that most Christians honestly believe what they claim to. This is my interpretation of Luke 18:18-22 (NJB):

"One of the rulers put this question to him, 'Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?'" - (the guy wants to go to heaven when he dies, so he asks Jesus how to get there)

"Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: You shall not commit adultery; You shall not kill; You shall not steal; You shall not give false witness; Honour your father and your mother.'" - (Jesus tells him he will get to heaven through good works, following the teachings of the 'Church')

"He replied, 'I have kept all these since my earliest days.' And when Jesus heard this he said, 'There is still one thing you lack.'" - (lack as in, he won't get to heaven unless he makes up for what he lacks in)

"'Sell everything you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.'" - (Jesus is saying that worldly possessions are meaningless and if he really believes in him, he will give everything up and dedicate his life to God and helping others)

Now, 95% of Christians have not "sold everything, given it to the poor, and followed the teachings of Jesus." My interpretation is that they don't believe enough to give up what they have. Is my interpretation of this verse wrong? Or are most Christians hypocrites?

Roadtoad

18th April 2009, 07:21 PM

Sorry, this fails.

The young man in question was trying to build himself up. "See what a great guy I am?" Jesus simply called his bluff.

You could point to the verses in the Book of Acts, where the early church members sold off what they could, then gave the money for the support of those who needed help, but even there, it fails, simply because Ananias and Sapphira weren't condemned because they failed to give everything, but because they claimed they gave every last cent. They were condemned because they lied.

No one is asking the church to give up every material possession. What's being asked of Christians in the Bible is that they use what possessions they have with respect for their Biblical positions as stewards.

The problem is, how often do they do that? When you tithe money and give offerings to the church, and the pastor is driving around in a Jaguar, is that good stewardship? When the church builds a building that covers an entire city block, but only sees use once a week, is that good stewardship? If the church can afford thousands of dollars in landscaping, but can't manage to keep a food or clothing closet going for those in need, is that good stewardship?

That's the problem. The church is claiming righteousness they do not have, and probably never did. It's great PR, all these claims of the past, but the reality is that it probably never happened. It's one of the reasons I call BS on Kurious Kathy when she's claiming works performed in Jesus name.

MarekM

18th April 2009, 07:30 PM

Roadtoad - I'm a little confused with your response. Are you saying that it's biblically "okay" for Christians to build up a great amount of personal wealth? ; that Luke 18:18-23 has nothing to do with this?

steve s

18th April 2009, 07:48 PM

Sorry, this fails.
No one is asking the church to give up every material possession. What's being asked of Christians in the Bible is that they use what possessions they have with respect for their Biblical positions as stewards.

Jesus would seem to think otherwise.

Luke 14:33 "So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions."

Now, 95% of Christians have not "sold everything, given it to the poor, and followed the teachings of Jesus."

Make that 99.9% and you'll be a little closer to the truth.

Steve S.

MarekM

18th April 2009, 07:50 PM

Make the 99.9% and you'll be a little closer to the truth.

Sorry - I'm lacking in empirical data... :boxedin:

Roadtoad

18th April 2009, 07:51 PM

Well, if you follow the stories of the Bible, it actually is acceptable for a believer to become quite wealthy. It's how you use that wealth that is supposed to make a difference.

Personally, I really don't have a problem with people becoming rich. It's when they build wealth without any conscience that concerns me. What we do to earn an income has an impact on what goes on around us. If what we do is harmful to others, we should re-examine what we're doing and what we can do to change things. We don't have the right to ignore the needs of the greater community that we see around us.

A prime example for me would be those idiotic McMansions that have been built in excess here in on the West Coast. What we're needing around here is homes that the average person can afford, anywhere from 550 to 1,200 square feet. What we have here in Sacramento are these godawful monstrosities of 2,400 to 8,000 square feet, which a pathetic few can afford, and only on two steady incomes, and on an interest-only loan. No one builds any equity in these wretched things, but we've got huge tracts of them.

I'm not saying the cited verses have nothing to do with the accumulation of wealth. I'm just saying it's a question of the context, and the intent, both of which if you read further are made clear. It's the misuse of wealth that the Bible condemns.

steve s

19th April 2009, 10:35 AM

Well, if you follow the stories of the Bible, it actually is acceptable for a believer to become quite wealthy.

Quote a few passages, please.

...both of which if you read further are made clear.

Please quote some of these "further" passages.

Steve S.

Holler Hoojer

19th April 2009, 10:59 AM

Quote a few passages, please.

Please quote some of these "further" passages.

Steve S.

"I got mine." Robertson 2:17

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 11:10 AM

Jesus would seem to think otherwise.

Luke 14:33 "So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions."

Here's the whole section where that verse comes from.

The Cost of Being a Disciple
25Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
28"Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? 29For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, 30saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.'

31"Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

34"Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? 35It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out.
"He who has ears to hear, let him hear." - Luke 14:25-35 NIV

Looks like it's part of a parable / hyperbole. And it's all about how following Jesus won't be easy and will be difficult.

I always find it fascinating when atheists tell Christians how to be True Christians. And how to interpret something (I find it even more fascinating when atheists insist their interpretation is the correct one!)

If you were a Christian posting your concern I'd say "You first. Good luck. When you succeed - come teach and help me. And when I succeed I'll come teach and help you. But for now I'm still not even where the Young Rich Man is at with being perfect." Since I assume you Steve_S and MarkM are not Christians ... well, this is going to be a rather silly discussion since you've decided how a True Christian should be and apparently there are only 5% True Christians in your view. Or at least 5% True Christians in regards to that verse. Maybe of those 5% they aren't doing something else you think they should.

By the way, I'm not sure where you're getting your statistic of 95%. Any sources? - I can't find any statistics on the number of Christians who have taken a vow of poverty. And is it poverty that's chosen that you're worried about? I know there are lots of priests and monks and nuns and such. And I know that many pastors live on shockingly little. And I know there are lots of Christians who live in poverty (and in fact many dieing of starvation and disease along with their fellow countrymen) - although that's probably not by choice - so does that not count on how you think True Christians should be?

Mr Clingford

19th April 2009, 11:18 AM

Right, the story in the OP addresses a man whose stumbling block was his attitude towards his great wealth - it was the most important thing to him.

As for Bible quotes - remember the story of Job where God very nicely gives him double of everything he had at the start.

Also, in the NT we have 'Love of money is a root of all kinds of evil', not the usual misquote.

As for Luke 14:33, I'm sure a number of Xtians have applied it literally to their lives, but it is in the same passage as 14:26 where Jesus says that you have to hate your own family in order to follow him. This strongly suggests that Jesus is using rhetoric, exaggerating to make his point - how do you take the following verses in the light of that? We know from other passages that Jesus used exaggeration and strong images.

fatewilleatyou

19th April 2009, 11:26 AM

Christians are meant to sit on gold thrones in crystal cathedrals with every need cared for singing their joy in the presence of the Lord. Unfortunately, many are impatient and feel need to commit any evil necessary to attain such a place before they die.
(I assume it's insurance in case heaven really doesn't exist)

Safe-Keeper

19th April 2009, 11:41 AM

What about the camel and the eye of the needle?

jbjr

19th April 2009, 11:54 AM

remember the story of Job where God very nicely gives him double of everything he had at the start.

Right. All Job had to endure was the slaughter of his family, livestock, and servants. And the destruction of his home, land, and crops. And then the physical agony of being covered with boils. AND he had to listen to God verbally bash him for not being omnipotent and for not having unicorns serve him. Then once Job grovels at his feet the wise and loving God gives him back what he had plus some. Except for his dead kids and wife, they got to stay dead. Quite a guy.

O.K. Rant over.

As for the camel/needle eye i would have to agree that this just further illustrates the danger of wealth (or more to the point the danger of misusing it). Jesus doesn't seem to be saying the man cant be wealthy or that wealthy people cant get into heaven. Just that its much more difficult for them because they have to avoid the temptations that wealth brings.

MarekM

19th April 2009, 11:57 AM

I always find it fascinating when atheists tell Christians how to be True Christians. And how to interpret something (I find it even more fascinating when atheists insist their interpretation is the correct one!)
I created this thread to see if others agree with my interpretation of Luke 18:18, not to force my interpretation onto others. What is your interpretation of this verse? What's wrong with mine?

By the way, I'm not sure where you're getting your statistic of 95%.

It was an arbitrary choice. I should have said, "a large percentage of Christians (particularly in developed countries) have not taken a vow of poverty." Sorry for any confusion.

MarekM

19th April 2009, 12:02 PM

As for the camel/needle eye i would have to agree that this just further illustrates the danger of wealth (or more to the point the danger of misusing it). Jesus doesn't seem to be saying the man cant be wealthy or that wealthy people cant get into heaven. Just that its much more difficult for them because they have to avoid the temptations that wealth brings.

What I don't understand is why someone who actually believes that what they do in this life will affect where they will be for all eternity would hold onto any wealth. Jesus was clearly against it. It's obviously at odds with "loving your neighbor." From what I've seen, it seems like many Christians go through mental gymnastics to avoid the implications of these teachings.

steve s

19th April 2009, 12:09 PM

Here's the whole section where that verse comes from.

I fail to see how that changes anything. It only reinforces what I quoted. Jesus is saying that you also have to forsake your family as well as your possessions. There's a passage elsewhere in the bible where he says you have to forsake your job as well.

Looks like it's part of a parable / hyperbole.

Wrong. When Jesus says "In the same way, any of you...", the "you" he's talking to is the crowd of people with him. This makes it clear that this is outside of any parable.

I always find it fascinating when atheists tell Christians how to be True Christians. And how to interpret something (I find it even more fascinating when atheists insist their interpretation is the correct one!)

Why not? You guys are always telling everybody else how to be True Christians. Plenty of you have shown up on my doorstep trying to do that. Never had an athiest show up at my door, though.

I'd say "You first. Good luck.

Except that Jesus is the one saying "You first" to you.

well, this is going to be a rather silly discussion since you've decided how a True Christian should be

No, Jesus is the one who decided how a True Christian should be, and he said you need to give up all your worldly possessions to do it.

I can't find any statistics on the number of Christians who have taken a vow of poverty.

You'd be hard-pressed to find any who have given away all their possessions and money to the poor.

I know there are lots of priests and monks and nuns and such. And I know that many pastors live on shockingly little.

Having attended a Catholic high school, I know that the only real expense a priest has is his car. All food, room and board, and medical expenses are provided for. Many non-catholic ministers and pastors have their homes provided to them by their church. A few miles down the road from me, a local church bought a plot of land adjacent to a big, beautiful home. They built a new church on the plot of land and allow the pastor to live in the home free of charge.

And I know there are lots of Christians who live in poverty (and in fact many dieing of starvation and disease along with their fellow countrymen) - although that's probably not by choice - so does that not count on how you think True Christians should be?

Emphasis on the "not by choice." :rolleyes: How many chrisitians do you know who have willingly given away all their possessions and money to the poor?

Steve S.

Roadtoad

19th April 2009, 12:20 PM

I generally don't agree with Christian Sceptic, but I think he's hit the high point.

Mr Clingford

19th April 2009, 12:21 PM

Right. All Job had to endure was the slaughter of his family, livestock, and servants. And the destruction of his home, land, and crops. And then the physical agony of being covered with boils. AND he had to listen to God verbally bash him for not being omnipotent and for not having unicorns serve him. Then once Job grovels at his feet the wise and loving God gives him back what he had plus some. Except for his dead kids and wife, they got to stay dead. Quite a guy.

O.K. Rant over.
Not at all. I was just displaying some of my English irony using the word 'nicely'. I wholeheartedly agree with your rant, which is why I disagree vociferously with fellow Xtians who believe it to be a true story. I think it is a device to explore suffering.

jbjr

19th April 2009, 12:23 PM

I kind of figured that but i wasnt quite sure

Beerina

19th April 2009, 01:10 PM

Roadtoad

19th April 2009, 01:12 PM

...because wise capital invested in an economically free society would benefit people a hell of a lot more than just heaving some semi-rotting meat at a bunch of layabouts down on their luck. It's the second most powerful method of raising up the overall health and quality of life of all*. As Jesus...is...GOD! one would think He would realize this.

* Next to an infinitely good and powerful and intelligent god easing everybody's troubles with an infinitely small flick of his little finger. But apparently that god doesn't exist, or is also endowed with the curious property of infinite laziness.

Touche. Well said!

MG1962

19th April 2009, 01:17 PM

I think what those passages are saying is dont take your wealth for ganted. Becoming rich can take a fair bit of luck. Simply working hard brings no pomise it will happen. And when you wake up one day and realise you have some weath. Dont automatically judge those who dont.

steve s

19th April 2009, 02:13 PM

I think what those passages are saying is dont take your wealth for ganted.

No, what the passage is saying is that you can't be a disciple of Jesus unless you give away all your possessions. It's pretty straight forward and unambiguous. I just love the mental gymnastics that people go through to justify not following the teachings of Jesus.

Steve S.

steve s

19th April 2009, 02:29 PM

"I got mine." Robertson 2:17

:D

Also, Falwell 15:23, Swaggert 7:19, Meyer 9:4, Roberts 4:23, Popoff 17:11, Angley 5:31, and on, and on,...

Mr Clingford

19th April 2009, 02:42 PM

I fail to see how that changes anything. It only reinforces what I quoted. Jesus is saying that you also have to forsake your family as well as your possessions.
Steve S.
No it doesn't. The passage says that followers must hate their family, not just forsake - now you are the one who is not taking things literally and is being inconsistent.

Roadtoad

19th April 2009, 02:43 PM

It still doesn't change anything.

No god. Not true. Simple.

Mr Clingford

19th April 2009, 02:46 PM

It still doesn't change anything.

No god. Not true. Simple.
I don't follow.

Roadtoad

19th April 2009, 02:49 PM

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 02:53 PM

What I don't understand is why someone who actually believes that what they do in this life will affect where they will be for all eternity would hold onto any wealth. Jesus was clearly against it. It's obviously at odds with "loving your neighbor." From what I've seen, it seems like many Christians go through mental gymnastics to avoid the implications of these teachings.

That's interesting - how is having wealth at odds with loving your neighbor?

Mr Clingford

19th April 2009, 02:54 PM

There is no god. If you don't follow these rules, the penalties are purely terrestrial, not eternal.

The statements made are the work of fiction. This is a book of apocryphal tales.

It is not true. Don't sweat it. Decency should be the order of the day, regardless of what this book says.
That's what I thought you were saying but the existence or not of God is not relevant to the argument put forward in the OP, which you also think is in error.
I think the Bible is a difficult collection of writings and find literalism aggravating. The context of the passage suggests it should be considered very carefully - I don't prooftext because I don't think it works - just because there is a quote in the Bible doesn't necessarily mean anything.

I agree that decency, doing the right thing, trying to be and act selflessly is the way to go (as does God IMO). Xtianity, as you know, is much more than the Bible.

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 02:57 PM

I created this thread to see if others agree with my interpretation of Luke 18:18, not to force my interpretation onto others. What is your interpretation of this verse? What's wrong with mine?

Your point of this OP is to reinforce your conclusion that Christians aren't interpreting the verses like you think they should or doing what you think they should and thus are hypocrites. You say so in your last paragraph.

You can have any interpretation you want and if you become a Christian someday then feel free to attempt to live by your interpretation.

Elizabeth I

19th April 2009, 02:58 PM

I always find it fascinating when atheists tell Christians how to be True Christians. And how to interpret something (I find it even more fascinating when atheists insist their interpretation is the correct one!)

What you conveniently forget - or perhaps refuse to acknowledge - is that many of the agnostics and atheists on this board came to that position by passing through devout Christianity. And, as smart and well-read as most of them are, they are eminently qualified to comment on Christian practice and belief.

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 03:07 PM

Wrong. When Jesus says "In the same way, any of you...", the "you" he's talking to is the crowd of people with him. This makes it clear that this is outside of any parable.

What did he just tell the crowd - a parable using hyperbole.

Why not? You guys are always telling everybody else how to be True Christians. Plenty of you have shown up on my doorstep trying to do that. Never had an athiest show up at my door, though.

You don't see a difference?

Except that Jesus is the one saying "You first" to you.

And He did it and therefore has a right to instruct and lead me. And I will continue to try my best to follow.

You'd be hard-pressed to find any who have given away all their possessions and money to the poor.

You're right - it's highly frowned on for people to walk around completely nude so I suppose they need some sort of possessions to clothe themselves. And also they need to eat so for a brief time they also possess food until's it's digested at least.

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 03:10 PM

No, what the passage is saying is that you can't be a disciple of Jesus unless you give away all your possessions. It's pretty straight forward and unambiguous. I just love the mental gymnastics that people go through to justify not following the teachings of Jesus.

Steve S.

Maybe you can lead us all by your example since your so concerned about how Christians are failing at this?

Nogbad

19th April 2009, 03:16 PM

It was relatively easy for early Christians to own nothing as many were slaves. There was also a general teaching that Christ's return was imminent and under such circumstances it was hardly very necessary to acquire worldly wealth. Clearly, 2,000 years on and the religion being the one of kings and queen's and tied to the trappings of state power one can hardly avoid issues of wealth.

The rationale I always thought was quite neat was "I have nothing, it all belongs to Jesus I am merely acting as steward for it" :) Brilliant!

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 03:18 PM

What you conveniently forget - or perhaps refuse to acknowledge - is that many of the agnostics and atheists on this board came to that position by passing through devout Christianity. And, as smart and well-read as most of them are, they are eminently qualified to comment on Christian practice and belief.

I am very well aware of the history of many atheists here and I'm also very well aware how many feel they know so much more than Christians about Christianity.

I would never tell a Hindu how I think a Hindu should behave regardless of how much I know or don't know about Hinduism because I'm not a fellow believer.

Locutus

19th April 2009, 03:20 PM

The ascetic monks and mendicant orders of the Middle Ages, who did take vows of poverty etc., accepted that Christians at large would not take this vow. What must be understood is that, whilst to become a monk and following the precepts of an order guarantees your entrance into Heaven (theologically speaking, according to that particular order of monks), it is not the only way. Other orders can still get into Heaven, they merely have less chance than you do; the same goes for lay Christians en masse and the "corrupt" clergy. I speak from a Middle Age historian's perspective on the subject of asceticism.

Cavemonster

19th April 2009, 03:25 PM

I am very well aware of the history of many atheists here and I'm also very well aware how many feel they know so much more than Christians about Christianity.

You must not be aware. Does ceasing to be a devout Christian after decades of worship and study suddenly obliterate your familiarity with the subject matter?

Would you say a Hindu who late in his life converted to Christianity has nothing to say about the religion he was raised and spent most of his life in?

Roadtoad

19th April 2009, 03:28 PM

You must not be aware. Does ceasing to be a devout Christian after decades of worship and study suddenly obliterate your familiarity with the subject matter?

Would you say a Hindu who late in his life converted to Christianity has nothing to say about the religion he was raised and spent most of his life in?

I all fairness to CS, many of us left the church because of the increasing literalism we've seen, coupled with what many of us regarded as the fallacies of the faith. It would seem that CS is not an absolute literalist in regards to scripture.

Nogbad

19th April 2009, 03:32 PM

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 03:34 PM

You must not be aware. Does ceasing to be a devout Christian after decades of worship and study suddenly obliterate your familiarity with the subject matter?

Who's talking about familiarity anywhere? You can tell a Christian or fellow Atheist why you think it's not true and why you don't believe it. It's a bit odd to instead lecture those Christians that they aren't being Christian enough.

Would you say a Hindu who late in his life converted to Christianity has nothing to say about the religion he was raised and spent most of his life in?

He can say why he thinks Hinduism is not true. He can instruct fellow Hindu's on how they can become a Christian and how to be a Christian. It's silly if instead he begins lecturing those Hindu's that they are not being Hindu enough.

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 03:37 PM

I all fairness to CS, many of us left the church because of the increasing literalism we've seen, coupled with what many of us regarded as the fallacies of the faith. It would seem that CS is not an absolute literalist in regards to scripture.

This isn't a response directed at you Roadtoad - but about your points.

Those would be and are many reasons why a person may no longer believe. But it doesn't appear the OP is about why that person no longer believes - but rather an insistance that Christians are being Hypocrites because they don't believe or act the same way the OP author would believe or act if he actually believed it.

Roadtoad

19th April 2009, 03:39 PM

As a Christian I read a lot. All C S Lewis' books and material as diverse as Thomas a Kempis to Mel Tari, John Bunyan to Louis Palou. Of course I am not up date with the latest writers but I do have a reasonable knowledge on the subject. I read the bible cover to cover several times and attended bible study every Wednesday night and after Sunday morning service - often staying with my study group right through to evening service.

Do we lose all insight if we leave?

No, but I tend to think, given my own experience, that as we leave, there's a change in our perspective, and it's not always positive. Sometimes, the departure can get a bit traumatic, and it alters how we've perceived.

I've read a great deal, too. Having done so, I've found that there are differences between those who wrote in the past and those who are writing now. It's the difference between Bonhoeffer's insistence that when Jesus calls us, he calls us to die, and that frigging imbecile that declared in the title of his book, "God wants you to be rich."

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 03:43 PM

As a Christian I read a lot. All C S Lewis' books and material as diverse as Thomas a Kempis to Mel Tari, John Bunyan to Louis Palou. Of course I am not up date with the latest writers but I do have a reasonable knowledge on the subject. I read the bible cover to cover several times and attended bible study every Wednesday night and after Sunday morning service - often staying with my study group right through to evening service.

Do we lose all insight if we leave?

Of course not. But you don't seem like a person who would insist on what a True Christian is either. In fact, I'm sure with how wide read you are you're probably quite aware of how diverse Christianity is. That maybe a reason you don't believe - because there are so many opinions / beliefs that differ, but it would be a bit odd for you (or anyone) to actually take a belief system you don't believe in and seperate True Believers from Not-True or Not As True.
I mean, if you believe Christianity's not true - then who cares the degrees - it's all not true - who cares who's truer or not truer?

Of course Roadtoad's been saying all that in much better, simpler phrases. :)

slingblade

19th April 2009, 03:46 PM

I am very well aware of the history of many atheists here and I'm also very well aware how many feel they know so much more than Christians about Christianity.

I would never tell a Hindu how I think a Hindu should behave regardless of how much I know or don't know about Hinduism because I'm not a fellow believer.

The only policing of a group should come from within the group?

Outsiders need not say a word, because they're outsiders, and so can't understand us as well as we see ourselves?

You're not one of us, so you can't critique us?

I'd call that naive, and dangerous. Besides, I was once a member of the club. That I quit doesn't mean I don't know anything about it anymore. In fact, I know as much as you do, I'm sure.

Would you say that former actors know nothing about acting and cant crit a new bard trodding the boards?

That a former president hasn't got a clue about being president, now that a new one's in office?

A retired teacher has no right to offer any criticism of current teachers or teaching methods?

Sorry, but like it or not, many of us non-believers here once were believers, and we have insight to share. If that fact chaps your hide a bit, buy some cream for it.

Nogbad

19th April 2009, 03:47 PM

Roadtoad

19th April 2009, 03:48 PM

This isn't a response directed at you Roadtoad - but about your points.

Those would be and are many reasons why a person may no longer believe. But it doesn't appear the OP is about why that person no longer believes - but rather an insistance that Christians are being Hypocrites because they don't believe or act the same way the OP author would believe or act if he actually believed it.

Well, perhaps, CS. Perhaps.

I got a PM earlier, and explained that there were critical contradictions in what I could see in scripture that led me to question what it was I believed, and why. It ultimately led me up and out.

Here's what I've maintained, though. I'm not what could be called a "hard" atheist; I'm open to actual evidence of the existence of God. Show me that, and we can talk. If you don't have it, let's not waste each other's time. It's not fair to me, and it's certainly not to you. (I should note that no one has yet shown me any evidence, and that in many cases, what I get are little intellectual games that simply demonstrate the contempt many believers have for atheists. At that point, I know better than to continue the conversation.)

Having said that, I believe you are correct in stating that Jesus was using hyperbole to illustrate a point in the cited verses. However, there are those to truly believe that you should not possess much in this stage of your life, since there are supposed to be greater rewards in the life to come which will outlast anything you're supposed to be laying claim to in this one.

To each his own, I guess.

Roadtoad

19th April 2009, 03:51 PM

I agree that the wording is perhaps a little confrontational. There is a point in there though in that the early church was very much "in the world but not of it" The teaching suggested that this world was not going to be around for long and Paul did exhort people to be on watch for Jesus' return. In such circumstances you are not going to care too much about investment returns in 20 years time.

When I became a Christian Hal Lindsey was all the rage (I am of a slightly older disposition) and it was fashionable to be rather disparaging of worldly goods because the second coming was any minute away. As I said in another thread I still have my Larry Norman album somewhere.

Whoa! Larry Norman! There's a name I haven't seen in a while! Is the album, I'm Only Visiting This Planet...? I got a kick out of the line in one of the songs, "They brought back a big bag of rocks. Only cost thirteen billion. Must be nice rocks..."

babbits

19th April 2009, 03:53 PM

Christian Skeptic ripostes: "Maybe you can lead us all by your example since your so concerned about how Christians are failing at this? "

Why should a non-Christian follow the Christian testament?

But why should you, a Christian, not follow the Christian testament?

stilicho

19th April 2009, 03:56 PM

Should all Christians make a vow of poverty?

The Pope and William of Ockham had this argument a long time ago. Did you just discover it?

Nogbad

19th April 2009, 03:56 PM

Of course not. But you don't seem like a person who would insist on what a True Christian is either. In fact, I'm sure with how wide read you are you're probably quite aware of how diverse Christianity is. That maybe a reason you don't believe - because there are so many opinions / beliefs that differ, but it would be a bit odd for you (or anyone) to actually take a belief system you don't believe in and seperate True Believers from Not-True or Not As True.
I mean, if you believe Christianity's not true - then who cares the degrees - it's all not true - who cares who's truer or not truer?

Of course Roadtoad's been saying all that in much better, simpler phrases. :)

Fair points - As far as I can see the true believer is the one that can weep with the desolate and laugh with the joyous. This can cover most denominations although I do struggle a little with those who measure their piety with a bigotometer. I accept that my definition is unacceptable to KK and others. It is mine I take responsibility for it.

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 03:58 PM

The only policing of a group should come from within the group?

Outsiders need not say a word, because they're outsiders, and so can't understand us as well as we see ourselves?

You're not one of us, so you can't critique us?

For almost all teachings (and in particular the topic of the OP) - yeah.
Why would anyone not in the group even care?

I'd call that naive, and dangerous.

I'm not sure why Christians taking a vow of poverty or not is dangerous to anyone.

Besides, I was once a member of the club. That I quit doesn't mean I don't know anything about it anymore. In fact, I know as much as you do, I'm sure.

Would you say that former actors know nothing about acting and cant crit a new bard trodding the boards?

That a former president hasn't got a clue about being president, now that a new one's in office?

A retired teacher has no right to offer any criticism of current teachers or teaching methods?

I don't think those analogies quite work.

Sorry, but like it or not, many of us non-believers here once were believers, and we have insight to share. If that fact chaps your hide a bit, buy some cream for it.

I fail to see the insight from the OP. Sorry.

Roadtoad

19th April 2009, 03:58 PM

The only policing of a group should come from within the group?

Outsiders need not say a word, because they're outsiders, and so can't understand us as well as we see ourselves?

You're not one of us, so you can't critique us?

I'd call that naive, and dangerous. Besides, I was once a member of the club. That I quit doesn't mean I don't know anything about it anymore. In fact, I know as much as you do, I'm sure.

Would you say that former actors know nothing about acting and cant crit a new bard trodding the boards?

That a former president hasn't got a clue about being president, now that a new one's in office?

A retired teacher has no right to offer any criticism of current teachers or teaching methods?

Sorry, but like it or not, many of us non-believers here once were believers, and we have insight to share. If that fact chaps your hide a bit, buy some cream for it.

The great self-deception, one more which was broken and helped me to leave. If you're not one of us, how can you understand what we believe and why we believe it? How can you fairly criticize what we say?

Except that in real life, in the real world, where we must interact with real people with real difficulties, with real challenges which must be met with realistic action, our private fantasies which are leading us to act in manners that are unrealistic not only can be criticized, but must be. We need to know that our actions are not in keeping with what it fair, decent, correct, and just. We need to know that we're being cruel so that we quit being cruel.

It is barbaric to simply bend knees and pray when there's a real need in people's lives. If someone comes to you who is hungry and unable to meet their needs, do you pray, or give them bread? What kind of a bastard does that kind of thing? (Before you say it, I have been on both sides of this. When I was in need, I had plenty of people who prayed for me. When I had the means, I was giving food, and criticized by others for not praying.)

If that chaps your hide, don't buy cream. Quit kneeling in the poison ivy and praying for your god to take it away. Get your ass out of there.

Nogbad

19th April 2009, 04:01 PM

Whoa! Larry Norman! There's a name I haven't seen in a while! Is the album, I'm Only Visiting This Planet...? I got a kick out of the line in one of the songs, "They brought back a big bag of rocks. Only cost thirteen billion. Must be nice rocks..."

Mine's "In Another Land (part 3)" I quite liked Larry.

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 04:02 PM

I agree that the wording is perhaps a little confrontational. There is a point in there though in that the early church was very much "in the world but not of it" The teaching suggested that this world was not going to be around for long and Paul did exhort people to be on watch for Jesus' return. In such circumstances you are not going to care too much about investment returns in 20 years time.

I like many of your points and some of the thoughts from some of the Christians turned atheist / agnostic here. It gives me some interesting perspectives.

As I said in another thread I still have my Larry Norman album somewhere.

You are an old timer! ;)

Roadtoad

19th April 2009, 04:03 PM

Fair points - As far as I can see the true believer is the one that can weep with the desolate and laugh with the joyous. This can cover most denominations although I do struggle a little with those who measure their piety with a bigotometer. I accept that my definition is unacceptable to KK and others. It is mine I take responsibility for it.

Uh, Nogbad, your definition isn't simply unacceptable to KK. Kathy is convinced that unless you believe her way, YOU ARE DOOMED TO AN ETERNITY IN HELLFIRE!!!

Kathy isn't simply a religious troll. She's probably a prime example of a religious bigot, convinced that there's no way that's anywhere near as righteous as hers. And she does this in near total ignorance of the very book she claims is the testament of her Master.

Sorry for the derail. I'm now going back to watch some porn.

Roadtoad

19th April 2009, 04:07 PM

Mine's "In Another Land (part 3)" I quite liked Larry.

That was a good one. Too bad Larry wasn't as big a believer as his albums led us to believe. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Norman) At least, if you had to go by the man's actions.

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 04:08 PM

I got a PM earlier, and explained that there were critical contradictions in what I could see in scripture that led me to question what it was I believed, and why. It ultimately led me up and out.

That makes sense.

Here's what I've maintained, though. I'm not what could be called a "hard" atheist; I'm open to actual evidence of the existence of God. Show me that, and we can talk. If you don't have it, let's not waste each other's time. It's not fair to me, and it's certainly not to you. (I should note that no one has yet shown me any evidence, and that in many cases, what I get are little intellectual games that simply demonstrate the contempt many believers have for atheists. At that point, I know better than to continue the conversation.)

Fair enough. I'm not here trying to prove anything to anyone. Last year it was more an exploration of me trying to understand different atheists perspectives. I took months away to work on my Masters Degree, and just popped back in.

Having said that, I believe you are correct in stating that Jesus was using hyperbole to illustrate a point in the cited verses. However, there are those to truly believe that you should not possess much in this stage of your life, since there are supposed to be greater rewards in the life to come which will outlast anything you're supposed to be laying claim to in this one.

To each his own, I guess.

And if one of them begins lecturing you on how if you were a Christian you should do that it will definitely add to their credibility if they are doing it themselves. :) Of course, I'd wonder why they are lecturing to a non-Christian on how they think a Christian should live. Seems sort of the inverse of the OP in a sense.

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 04:23 PM

The great self-deception, one more which was broken and helped me to leave. If you're not one of us, how can you understand what we believe and why we believe it? How can you fairly criticize what we say?

I would say this might only apply if a demand by a Christian is place upon you. I fail to understand how a demand a Christian places on themselves or on another Christian should be judged by a non-Christian - in light of the OP.

Except that in real life, in the real world, where we must interact with real people with real difficulties, with real challenges which must be met with realistic action, our private fantasies which are leading us to act in manners that are unrealistic not only can be criticized, but must be. We need to know that our actions are not in keeping with what it fair, decent, correct, and just. We need to know that we're being cruel so that we quit being cruel.

It is barbaric to simply bend knees and pray when there's a real need in people's lives. If someone comes to you who is hungry and unable to meet their needs, do you pray, or give them bread? What kind of a bastard does that kind of thing? (Before you say it, I have been on both sides of this. When I was in need, I had plenty of people who prayed for me. When I had the means, I was giving food, and criticized by others for not praying.)

We all have to base things off our life experiences.

I once went to a Christian College group a long time and they had a financial speaker explain how some are called to give money (like him) and some are called to serve physically (like at a homeless shelter). It seemed to me that he was just trying to figure out a way for him not to get his hands dirty. But he wasn't being a hypocrite unless he actually wasn't giving money. And even if he was a hypocrite that doesn't have an ounce of anything on the trueness of something being taught - it just removes any crdibility that person has with him telling me how to live.

If that chaps your hide, don't buy cream. Quit kneeling in the poison ivy and praying for your god to take it away. Get your ass out of there.

haha - nice!

Beerina

19th April 2009, 04:26 PM

Radrook

19th April 2009, 04:28 PM

I heard of this fella who read the Bible from cover to cover-put a revolver to his head and blew his brains out.

Anyway, about the question. Thev mistake you are making is in drawing vast generalizations from scanty out of context evidence.

Roadtoad

19th April 2009, 04:32 PM

I heard of this fella who read the Bible from cover to cover-put a revolver to his head and blew his brains out...

He was obviously a hell of a shot.

Nogbad

19th April 2009, 04:38 PM

That was a good one. Too bad Larry wasn't as big a believer as his albums led us to believe. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Norman) At least, if you had to go by the man's actions.

Hadn't realised he had died.

Nogbad

19th April 2009, 04:39 PM

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 04:47 PM

A person who used to be a Hindu, and who thought about it a whole hell of a lot, and stopped being a Hindu, would you have a problem with them telling a Hindu how a Hindu is supposed to act in that religion?

They probably know a hell of a lot more than the Hindus who only go to church on Sundays, much less just Easter and Christmas*.

Why would an ex-Hindu even care? Seems like an awful lot of wasted time and energy to spend on instructing and helping Hindu's become better Hindu's when he doesn't even believe it anymore.

But hey - if you really want to become a teacher and example to help Christians become better Christians - go ahead.

Radrook

19th April 2009, 05:28 PM

I've read worse. He was obviously very critical.

Maybe he thought it was the quickest go to heaven. Those things happen when people don't understand what they are reading. Origen castrated himself based on his misunderstanding.
Seems to me like the case of an undereducated undisciplined narrow mind. Mental iunstability could be a contriubuting factor.
There are so many alternatives to just imediately and conclusivel blaming the book aren't there? Just a little effort brings them readily to mind.

SezMe

19th April 2009, 05:45 PM

Why would anyone not in the group even care?

I would say this might only apply if a demand by a Christian is place upon you. I fail to understand how a demand a Christian places on themselves or on another Christian should be judged by a non-Christian - in light of the OP.
The problem is that some christians don't constrain themselves to demands on others of their own faith. This is particularly troublesome when such christians have considerable power outside their domain. Dobson. Falwell. DeLay. etc.

SezMe

19th April 2009, 05:48 PM

Now, 95% of Christians have not "sold everything, given it to the poor, and followed the teachings of Jesus." My interpretation is that they don't believe enough to give up what they have. Is my interpretation of this verse wrong? Or are most Christians hypocrites?
No. The resolution you are missing is that the bible gives many way to go to heaven/be a good christian. You can sell everything. Of you can do good works. Or you can believe Jesus is your only savior. Or you can repent on your death bed.

Find a christian who believes that whatever approach they are taking to be a good christian and you'll also find someone who can find a biblical passage to justify that approach.

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 05:52 PM

The problem is that some christians don't constrain themselves to demands on others of their own faith. This is particularly troublesome when such christians have considerable power outside their domain. Dobson. Falwell. DeLay. etc.

Uh, that's what I said. And a Christian telling another Christian to take a vow of poverty or attempting to do it themself isn't a demand on any non-believer.

I would say this might only apply if a demand by a Christian is place upon you. I fail to understand how a demand a Christian places on themselves or on another Christian should be judged by a non-Christian - in light of the OP.

Cavemonster

19th April 2009, 06:06 PM

Who's talking about familiarity anywhere? You can tell a Christian or fellow Atheist why you think it's not true and why you don't believe it. It's a bit odd to instead lecture those Christians that they aren't being Christian enough.

He can say why he thinks Hinduism is not true. He can instruct fellow Hindu's on how they can become a Christian and how to be a Christian. It's silly if instead he begins lecturing those Hindu's that they are not being Hindu enough.

Let's expand your arguments to non-religious areas and see if they hold up.

Non-politicians can't tell politicians that they aren't living up to the oath of office.

Former Architects can't tell current architects that their plans don't meet building codes.

Non-coaches can't judge whether a coach made good decisions during an important game.

So does religion get a special pass, or do you agree with the statements above?

Bob Blaylock

19th April 2009, 06:25 PM

I always find it fascinating when atheists tell Christians how to be True Christians. And how to interpret something (I find it even more fascinating when atheists insist their interpretation is the correct one!)

What you conveniently forget - or perhaps refuse to acknowledge - is that many of the agnostics and atheists on this board came to that position by passing through devout Christianity. And, as smart and well-read as most of them are, they are eminently qualified to comment on Christian practice and belief.

If one wants to succeed at anything, the source that one should look to for instruction and example surely isn't someone who has failed.

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 06:28 PM

Let's expand your arguments to non-religious areas and see if they hold up.

Non-politicians can't tell politicians that they aren't living up to the oath of office.

Former Architects can't tell current architects that their plans don't meet building codes.

These two analogies don't work because all parties are referencing a third rule that they both agree on and believe in. They are referencing the same authority which they both believe in.

Non-coaches can't judge whether a coach made good decisions during an important game.

They can only do this to quarterbacks while sitting in an armchair.

I think a better example would be a non-trekkie telling a trekkie how a True Trekkie would act and be like.

Elizabeth I

19th April 2009, 06:36 PM

For almost all teachings (and in particular the topic of the OP) - yeah.
Why would anyone not in the group even care?

So if the allegations of child abuse against the FLDS Church had been true, no one outside the church could have criticized them?

Who's talking about familiarity anywhere? You can tell a Christian or fellow Atheist why you think it's not true and why you don't believe it. It's a bit odd to instead lecture those Christians that they aren't being Christian enough.

He can say why he thinks Hinduism is not true. He can instruct fellow Hindu's on how they can become a Christian and how to be a Christian. It's silly if instead he begins lecturing those Hindu's that they are not being Hindu enough.

Well, enough Christians (not you, or some others on this board) set Christianity up as the supreme example of how to approach life and our fellow humans that it seems pretty reasonable to point out when they fail to live up to their own standards. If I were an advocate for a local animal shelter and you found out I tortured puppies in my basement, wouldn't you think it your duty to speak out against me?

Let's expand your arguments to non-religious areas and see if they hold up.

Non-politicians can't tell politicians that they aren't living up to the oath of office.

Former Architects can't tell current architects that their plans don't meet building codes.

Non-coaches can't judge whether a coach made good decisions during an important game.

So does religion get a special pass, or do you agree with the statements above?

Don't the religious mostly seem to think religion should get a special pass?

Cavemonster

19th April 2009, 06:39 PM

These two analogies don't work because all parties are referencing a third rule that they both agree on and believe in. They are referencing the same authority which they both believe in.

No, I don't need to believe in building codes to know they are being broken. I can disagree with them passionately, but still be able to read them and know when they are being broken.

I don't need to believe in a particular country's oath of office to know that a politician there is not living up to them. I can be very familiar with the obligations of a Chinese official, even if I don't believe those obligations are good, I can judge whether that official is living up to them if I am familiar with the rules and the culture they exist in.

So is the bible a special set of rules, different from all other rules in that you can only understand them if you believe in them? You stop being able to understand them the moment you lose faith? We're talking about internal consistency here, not rightness. I can judge the internal consistency of any system that I can fully understand. I don't need to be a proponent of that system to make that judgement.

Cavemonster

19th April 2009, 06:40 PM

I think a better example would be a non-trekkie telling a trekkie how a True Trekkie would act and be like.

Do trekkies have a written rule book that they are commanded to follow?

Elizabeth I

19th April 2009, 06:41 PM

I think a better example would be a non-trekkie telling a trekkie how a True Trekkie would act and be like.

Have you just admitted that you believe in, and guide your life according to, a fictional construct?

Lonewulf

19th April 2009, 06:47 PM

Who's talking about familiarity anywhere? You can tell a Christian or fellow Atheist why you think it's not true and why you don't believe it. It's a bit odd to instead lecture those Christians that they aren't being Christian enough.

To use an analogy, if someone told me that they liked the U.S. Constitution, but then believed in heavy gun control (minor point for me, but still), restricting freedom of speech across the board (and not just the modern socially acceptable exceptions), and essentially went against all 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights and of the constitution, you'd argue that I shouldn't say that he doesn't really like the U.S. constitution much at all. At least, as long as he's an American and I'm not. Or something.

"Like" being defined as "find it a good set of laws to follow."

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 06:51 PM

No, I don't need to believe in building codes to know they are being broken. I can disagree with them passionately, but still be able to read them and know when they are being broken.

I don't need to believe in a particular country's oath of office to know that a politician there is not living up to them. I can be very familiar with the obligations of a Chinese official, even if I don't believe those obligations are good, I can judge whether that official is living up to them if I am familiar with the rules and the culture they exist in.

You obviously believe that those rules and oaths are the authority they need to be following. That they aren't just some meaningless rules and oaths.

So is the bible a special set of rules, different from all other rules in that you can only understand them if you believe in them? You stop being able to understand them the moment you lose faith? We're talking about internal consistency here, not rightness. I can judge the internal consistency of any system that I can fully understand. I don't need to be a proponent of that system to make that judgement.

You can only say someone is not following a certain interpretation of something if they agree to that interpretation. And if you don't believe any interpretations - what's the point? And if you do believe a certain interpretation is correct if it was true - what's the point when you don't believe it?

We've now hit the circle of this discussion I think. Oh well.

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 06:52 PM

Have you just admitted that you believe in, and guide your life according to, a fictional construct?

You and other atheists think that. That's the whole point.

Cavemonster

19th April 2009, 06:58 PM

You obviously believe that those rules and oaths are the authority they need to be following. That they aren't just some meaningless rules and oaths.

No, I don't need to believe they need to be following those rules. I'm only making the judgement that they aren't following them. If they claim to follow them and are not, that makes them hippocrites, regardless of what I think the value of the rules are.

If an employee is constantly harranging other employees for not following company policy by violating the dress code, then steals pens every day. We can read the policy manual and see his hippocracy "Employees must not take office supplies", Even if we think the rules are stupid, we can comment on the inconsistency of touting the importance of the rules while clearly breaking them.

Elizabeth I

19th April 2009, 06:58 PM

Have you just admitted that you believe in, and guide your life according to, a fictional construct?

You and other atheists think that. That's the whole point.

How come you answered that post but not this one?

So if the allegations of child abuse against the FLDS Church had been true, no one outside the church could have criticized them?

<snip>

Well, enough Christians (not you, or some others on this board) set Christianity up as the supreme example of how to approach life and our fellow humans that it seems pretty reasonable to point out when they fail to live up to their own standards. If I were an advocate for a local animal shelter and you found out I tortured puppies in my basement, wouldn't you think it your duty to speak out against me?

p.s. regarding the animal advocacy example, I think even a lot of people who don't like animals would find that hypocrisy repugnant.

Lonewulf

19th April 2009, 07:00 PM

Nonsense.

Everyone loves puppies.

Except for people that aren't really people. They need to be "dealt with". ;)

Elizabeth I

19th April 2009, 07:03 PM

Nonsense.

Everyone loves puppies.

Except for people that aren't really people. They need to be "dealt with". ;)

Strange though it is, I have actually known people who didn't like dogs. I know, I know...

Darth Rotor

19th April 2009, 07:06 PM

Strange though it is, I have actually known people who didn't like dogs.

Let me at 'em! :mad:

(J/K)

DR

Roadtoad

19th April 2009, 07:08 PM

Strange though it is, I have actually known people who didn't like dogs. I know, I know...

:jaw-dropp

No!

How could ANYONE not like DOGS!?!?!

NewtonTrino

19th April 2009, 07:45 PM

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 07:49 PM

To use an analogy, if someone told me that they liked the U.S. Constitution, but then believed in heavy gun control (minor point for me, but still), restricting freedom of speech across the board (and not just the modern socially acceptable exceptions), and essentially went against all 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights and of the constitution, you'd argue that I shouldn't say that he doesn't really like the U.S. constitution much at all. At least, as long as he's an American and I'm not. Or something.

"Like" being defined as "find it a good set of laws to follow."

Great non-religious and relevant example!

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 07:52 PM

How come you answered that post but not this one?

Missed it - sorry. See next post.

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 08:00 PM

So if the allegations of child abuse against the FLDS Church had been true, no one outside the church could have criticized them?

First- This is nowhere similar to the OP's issue.

Second- criticize? If someone's breaking the law and especially if it's physically harming someone you definitely don't criticize - you turn them in to the proper authorities unless you agree with their breaking of the law.

As far as I can tell - a vow of poverty isn't illegal. And not taking a vow of poverty is also not illegal.

Well, enough Christians (not you, or some others on this board) set Christianity up as the supreme example of how to approach life and our fellow humans that it seems pretty reasonable to point out when they fail to live up to their own standards.

Are they making a demand on you? If not - who bloody cares if someone's a hypocrite or not successfully following all the ideals they are aiming for?

If I were an advocate for a local animal shelter and you found out I tortured puppies in my basement, wouldn't you think it your duty to speak out against me?

Only if I agreed with and had the same belief in the treatment of animals as the advocate was advocating. (I do - by the way - think torturing puppies is wrong. And I like most animals - except moles and possums and, well, other pests. :) )

Elizabeth I

19th April 2009, 08:12 PM

First- This is nowhere similar to the OP's issue.

Second- criticize? If someone's breaking the law and especially if it's physically harming someone you definitely don't criticize - you turn them in to the proper authorities unless you agree with their breaking of the law.

As far as I can tell - a vow of poverty isn't illegal. And not taking a vow of poverty is also not illegal.

Are they making a demand on you? If not - who bloody cares if someone's a hypocrite or not successfully following all the ideals they are aiming for?

Only if I agreed with and had the same belief in the treatment of animals as the advocate was advocating. (I do - by the way - think torturing puppies is wrong. And I like most animals - except moles and possums and, well, other pests. :) )

So if I were going around raising money for an animal shelter and at that same time torturing animals in secret, you don't think you would have an obligation to bring my behavior to public view?

Wow. Just wow.

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 08:14 PM

So if I were going around raising money for an animal shelter and at that same time torturing animals in secret, you don't think you would have an obligation to bring my behavior to public view?

Wow. Just wow.

Nice try. Are you a former Christian Literalist by any chance?

Elizabeth I

19th April 2009, 08:19 PM

That's not what you said?

A Christian Sceptic

19th April 2009, 09:04 PM

That's not what you said?

No.

You're analogy is missing something written that you believe is fictional so it's not quite the same as the OP by the way.

linusrichard

19th April 2009, 10:09 PM

If one of the big things about Christianity is the fact that the Bible gives All the Answers, then anybody able to read and understand ought to be able to comment on what a Christian should and shouldn't do, especially when it comes from Christ's words in the gospels, and not any parable or allegory.

It seems pretty clear to me that Christ was commanding us to do something a lot more radical than believing in him and loving our neighbor and even forgiving and not judging - a lot more radical, like plucking out your eye if it offends you. That might be a metaphor (I happen to believe he meant it quite literally), but I don't see how the "sell everything you own" thing works as a metaphor. It's a pretty clear commandment, and it goes right along with the whole "hate your life" thing - it doesn't sound like Jesus was trying to make a way for normal people to have some nice religion in their lives (although that's what it's turned into) - it sounds like Jesus was trying to make a radical messianic Jewish cult that didn't care for this world, only for the next.

So what gives me, a non-Christian, the right to criticize Christians for disobeying Christ's commands? Well, the first answer is that I don't need anything to give me that right. I don't need a special justification for pointing out hypocrisy where I see it. But the other answer is that, if the Christians are going to take the trouble to insert themselves into my life and the lives of those around me (and they do), then I sure ought to be able to question them. Otherwise, it's like trying to have it both ways: Christianity is public enough that people are going to put laws on the books that are obviously motivated by Christianity, but private enough that a non-Christian, although bound by those laws, can't even look into the Christianity that brought them about.

It's kind of like how, when you run for office, you have to release your tax returns. The public gets an interest in this information. Likewise, a religion becomes fair game when it attempts to impose its theology on me, and I then have an interest in pointing out how so-called "Christians" have ignored, or explained away, certain of Christ's commandments.

linusrichard

19th April 2009, 10:12 PM

Anyway the answer to the question in the thread title is probably NO - even though Christ commanded poverty, he also commanded us not to swear any oaths (which I would think would cover a vow of poverty).

Lonewulf

20th April 2009, 05:26 AM

Great non-religious and relevant example!

I'm assuming that you're being sarcastic. So the example has to be religious to count?

So tell me, what constitutes "understanding"? Only belief constitutes it?

Mashuna

20th April 2009, 05:55 AM

For almost all teachings (and in particular the topic of the OP) - yeah.
Why would anyone not in the group even care?

Because some people take certain teachings and spend a great deal of time and money trying to impose them on other people who aren't in the group?

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 06:58 AM

I'm assuming that you're being sarcastic. So the example has to be religious to count?

So tell me, what constitutes "understanding"? Only belief constitutes it?

No - I wasn't being sarcastic. A countries constitution is a great example.

So far - all the other non-religious examples were not the same idea. I think your analogy is.

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 07:07 AM

Because some people take certain teachings and spend a great deal of time and money trying to impose them on other people who aren't in the group?

Is the idea that as a Christian you should take a vow of poverty being imposed on non-Christians?

Mashuna

20th April 2009, 07:15 AM

Is the idea that as a Christian you should take a vow of poverty being imposed on non-Christians?

Not as far as I know. I was focussing on the 'for almost all teachings' part of your quote.

Darat

20th April 2009, 07:32 AM

That's interesting - how is having wealth at odds with loving your neighbor?

Because the teaching is not "love thy neighbour" - it is "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". It's a pretty key point of most major Christan denominations' teachings - surprised you seem unaware of it! ;)

_____

To the opening post - I think it is one of the least ambiguous messages given in Jesus' own words in the NT, and since it was pretty much the teaching of the RCC for centuries it seems that many, many Christians have also found this meaning to be quite clear. Given that it would seem, at a cursory examination, that people who label themselves as Christians and claim to follow what is in the Bible are being at best hypocrites if they don't follow this particular teaching. However when you look at the group of people who label themselves with a religious label (e.g. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and so on), a broad but quite accurate generalisation is that they all seem at best to only abide by the teachings that they themselves are comfortable with.

Darat

20th April 2009, 07:40 AM

Eddie Dane

20th April 2009, 08:16 AM

Right. All Job had to endure was the slaughter of his family, livestock, and servants. And the destruction of his home, land, and crops. And then the physical agony of being covered with boils. AND he had to listen to God verbally bash him for not being omnipotent and for not having unicorns serve him. Then once Job grovels at his feet the wise and loving God gives him back what he had plus some. Except for his dead kids and wife, they got to stay dead. Quite a guy.

When you get rid of your wife and kids, it usually costs half of all you own.

So there. God was being nice.

linusrichard

20th April 2009, 08:21 AM

But this is and historically was not true; what Christianity is (with very few exceptions) is defined by its hierarchy, so the traditional root of Christianity - The Roman Catholic Church has always claimed for itself the ability to define what is and is not the correct teachings and interpretations of the Bible. Much of Catholic doctrine is at best only tenuously linked to what is the Bible!

The Protestant reformations did go some way to opening up the Bible to the laity but still even in most of the protestant denominations the authority to make doctrine is held in the church itself.

This is a fair point. But I think with respect to the dominant Christianity at this time and in this place (this place for me is the US - YMMV) it doesn't really undermine my point. I think if you ask a Christian (even a Catholic!) what the Bible is, you will not be told that it is a source that church officials use to guide them in making doctrine that they then transmit to the laity. Rather, they will say something along the lines of that it's the infallible true word of God which guides him or her directly in leading his or her life. Although some Christians might dismiss the cosmogony part as myth or metaphor, and others might not be too interested in the Exodus and other old historical parts of the Bible, when it comes to the New Testament, and the Gospels in particular, Christians claim to take that pretty seriously - and they do so directly, not through a church.

If a Christian tells me that he reads the Bible, but does not trust himself to understand any of it, and therefore relies entirely on doctrine handed down to him from clergy, then I wouldn't consider that Christian to be a hypocrite when he rejects Christ's clear command to sell all his possessions. I don't think that's a prevalent Christian attitude toward the Bible, and especially the Gospels, in 21st century America.

Mr Clingford

20th April 2009, 08:26 AM

...To the opening post - I think it is one of the least ambiguous messages given in Jesus' own words in the NT,As unambiguous as Jesus telling his disciples that they must hate their family?
and since it was pretty much the teaching of the RCC for centuries it seems that many, many Christians have also found this meaning to be quite clear.This doesn't sound outlandish, but would you direct me to some sources.
Given that it would seem, at a cursory examination, that people who label themselves as Christians and claim to follow what is in the Bible are being at best hypocrites if they don't follow this particular teaching. However when you look at the group of people who label themselves with a religious label (e.g. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and so on), a broad but quite accurate generalisation is that they all seem at best to only abide by the teachings that they themselves are comfortable with.A universal human failing, perhaps.

Darat

20th April 2009, 09:04 AM

...snip...

This doesn't sound outlandish, but would you direct me to some sources.

Seriously? Have you never heard of the "vow of poverty"? Indeed it is still part of entering many of the religious orders or communities of the RC, many religious priests still elect to make such a vow and so on. I can go and do a Google search if you like but I really don't think there is anything outlandish or controversial about my statement.

...snip...
A universal human failing, perhaps.

I agree the behaviour is very human but what has that got to do with the opening post and the issue under discussion?

Mr Clingford

20th April 2009, 09:09 AM

Seriously? Have you never heard of the "vow of poverty"? Indeed it is still part of entering many of the religious orders or communities of the RC, many religious priests still elect to make such a vow and so on. I can go and do a Google search if you like but I really don't think there is anything outlandish or controversial about my statement.
Of course I am aware of vows of poverty for religious orders, but you appeared to suggest that the Church stated that all Christians were bound by this.
I agree the behaviour is very human but what has that got to do with the opening post and the issue under discussion?Not a lot; just noting that all people are fallible. Some people, though, do take this kind of thing very literally - doesn't mean they are right.

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 09:14 AM

Because the teaching is not "love thy neighbour" - it is "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". It's a pretty key point of most major Christan denominations' teachings - surprised you seem unaware of it! ;)

Interesting idea you have there.
If someone wants to have wealth then they need to do what? Help others have wealth too?

Now - is that by teaching them how to create wealth themselves? Or you working hard to create your own wealth and then giving away some of your money so the other person can have the same amount of wealth as you without them working for it? Does their wealth have to be exactly equal to your wealth - what if it's off by a couple dollars?

Is it their neighbors only within a certain mile radius they need to support by giving them money?

Please elaborate.

Darat

20th April 2009, 09:18 AM

Of course I am aware of vows of poverty for religious orders, but you appeared to suggest that the Church stated that all Christians were bound by this.
...snip...

Not "bound" but certainly something all followers of RC should aspire to.

The Norseman

20th April 2009, 09:23 AM

You're analogy is missing something written that you believe is fictional so it's not quite the same as the OP by the way.

So then please respond to the point, and not strawman attack the analogy.

themusicteacher

20th April 2009, 09:24 AM

I am well aware that some Christians believe every last word in the Bible to be the unfailing, unflinching, ever-true, not-open-for-interpretation word of God. However, when I hear the words of a man such as Jesus, I hear him as a clever story-teller, a muse of morality. He was Socrates before there was Socrates. He may have used God as a device (since practically everyone believed the same way) but he was, in my opinion, making points about people and their lack of real sacrifice, morality, love of one-another, etc. He broke down others' arguments and showed who they really were. That was his skill. Much of what he still says holds true today, even for many Christians who feel free to pick and choose which teachings (and commandments) they will follow and which they won't according to how it effects their money, status, predilictions and so forth. And, much as it is today, when some long-haired hippie tells truth to power, they are often marginalized and silenced.

Darat

20th April 2009, 09:25 AM

Interesting idea you have there.

Not my idea at all - the idea is in the Bible e.g.

Leviticus 19:18:

.... but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.....

Matthew 7:12:

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Matthew 19:16:

.....Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Mark 12:31

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Do you need further quotes from the Bible?

...snip...
Please elaborate.

You want me, a person who doesn't label themselves as a "Christian" (although I am labeled as such by one denomination of Christianity), to elaborate on Christian teachings? Seems quite a turn about.

Darat

20th April 2009, 09:27 AM

...snip... He was Socrates before there was Socrates.

...snip...

Well if the dates the Christians claim are correct then Jesus appears what about 400 years after Socrates was meant to have lived?

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 09:29 AM

Not my idea at all - the idea is in the Bible e.g.

Leviticus 19:18:

.... but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.....

Matthew 7:12:

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Matthew 19:16:

.....Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Mark 12:31

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Do you need further quotes from the Bible?

Your application of those verses to wealth.

You want me, a person who doesn't label themselves as a "Christian" (although I am labeled as such by one denomination of Christianity), to elaborate on Christian teachings? Seems quite a turn about.

You don't need to then. No biggee. You made some statements I didn't understand - you don't need to help me understand. Whatever floats your boat.

Darat

20th April 2009, 09:33 AM

Your application of those verses to wealth.

Eh?

You don't need to then. No biggee. You made some statements I didn't understand - you don't need to help me understand. Whatever floats your boat.

I was merely correcting your mistaken statement of a Christian teaching. I.e. You stated that it was "love thy neighbour" , I was pointing out that it wasn't it was "love thy neighbour as thyself".

Orthoptera

20th April 2009, 09:34 AM

He was Socrates before there was Socrates.

Socrates died about 400 B.C., by the way.

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 09:41 AM

Eh?

I was merely correcting your mistaken statement of a Christian teaching. I.e. You stated that it was "love thy neighbour" , I was pointing out that it wasn't it was "love thy neighbour as thyself".

I never made a statement about "love they neighbor" - MarkeM did here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4634291#post4634291). He never explained the correlation he's drawn between "love they neighbor" and "wealth" when I asked about it.

You jumped in correcting MarekM (well - apperently you thought you were correcting me) by adding "as thyself" and now won't explain the correlation you're making between those verses and wealth. You don't have to explain anything, that's fine.

Mister Agenda

20th April 2009, 10:10 AM

No.

You're analogy is missing something written that you believe is fictional so it's not quite the same as the OP by the way.

Welcome back, CS! I notice you keep referring back to the OP when you have moved the discussion to the topic of it not being the business of non-Christians to evaluate whether the standards Christians adhere to are actually the same standards required by Jesus. It's your derail, but it's an interesting one.

I would consider pointing out the discrepancy between the call to disciples to give their wealth to the poor and the fact that this practice is rarely followed by Christians to be a teaching opportunity for both sides. The Christian can explain why their accumulation and retention of wealth does not contradict Biblical teaching (thus possibly removing an obstacle to adopting Christianity)and the non-Christian may be able to get the Christian to consider an aspect of their beliefs they may not have thought through. Win-win.

My interest in pointing out discrepancies between the Bible and Christian practice is similar to my interest in pointing out the discrepancies in a 9/11 truther's sabotage scenario. The idea that I should have no interest in disabusing an otherwise-rational person's belief in the reality of something I regard as fiction seems a fairly bizarre notion to me. I understand if someone doesn't want to debate with me, but not being able to comprehend my motivation for being willing to debate strikes me as very odd.

Gaetan

20th April 2009, 10:22 AM

Jesus taught that rich should share their goods with others, so this is pure socialism. Christians are outside the track, they honor the Christ but their heart is with the devil because every man for himself is a devil value. In an ideal world everything should be free and the creation of richness should be made from volontary work.

Gaétan

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 10:32 AM

Welcome back, CS! I notice you keep referring back to the OP when you have moved the discussion to the topic of it not being the business of non-Christians to evaluate whether the standards Christians adhere to are actually the same standards required by Jesus. It's your derail, but it's an interesting one.

I've been trying to keep with the example of the OP as best as possible, but answering analogies that aren't within the context of the OP (even if the discussion is moved away from the OP) seems like it might need to be a seperate thread.

It seems to me an analogy would need the following:

1) A written record of some form of behavior
2) That behavior only affects people who accept that written record
3) That behavior is internally debated and discussed
4) An outside person who views the written record as fictional/false but wants to insist that the people who do accept the writings authority should follow the Outside persons interpretation or they are all hypocrites.

I would consider pointing out the discrepancy between the call to disciples to give their wealth to the poor and the fact that this practice is rarely followed by Christians to be a teaching opportunity for both sides. The Christian can explain why their accumulation and retention of wealth does not contradict Biblical teaching (thus possibly removing an obstacle to adopting Christianity)and the non-Christian may be able to get the Christian to consider an aspect of their beliefs they may not have thought through. Win-win.

True - but the spirit of the OP seems more like "See - 95% of Christians are all Hypocrites! I knew it!"

My interest in pointing out discrepancies between the Bible and Christian practice is similar to my interest in pointing out the discrepancies in a 9/11 truther's sabotage scenario. The idea that I should have no interest in disabusing an otherwise-rational person's belief in the reality of something I regard as fiction seems a fairly bizarre notion to me. I understand if someone doesn't want to debate with me, but not being able to comprehend my motivation for being willing to debate strikes me as very odd.

I assume your motivation and interest is out of concern for the individual? At any rate - unless a 9/11 Truther is imposing their viewpoint in some manner - I fail to see what it should concern me how whether a True 9/11 Truther should wear blue or a True 9/11 Truther should wear red should matter. This seems to be more inline with the issue of the OP - an internal ideal that doesn't affect anyone else except those followers/believers. (I just stuck with your example - I know's its a limited and bad example since I doubt the 9/11 Truthers are organized to where they have written "All 9/11 Truthers should wear bright colors." or something that is being debated and interpretted internally.)

Added:

As I think about it I suppose someone could argue to a 9/11 Truther like this:

Truther: You need to believe that the government destroyed the Twin Towers.

Someone: Oh yeah, well right here in your manual it says you're supposed to wear bright colors which means you need to wear Red. And you're wearing Blue. You're a hypocrite.

Cavemonster

20th April 2009, 11:06 AM

It seems to me an analogy would need the following:

1) A written record of some form of behavior
2) That behavior only affects people who accept that written record
3) That behavior is internally debated and discussed
4) An outside person who views the written record as fictional/false but wants to insist that the people who do accept the writings authority should follow the Outside persons interpretation or they are all hypocrites.

1) More importantly, a written set of rules.
2) How does anyone's behavior in society not effect everyone they deal with, whether or not they believe in Jesus?
3) OK
4) Here's the most crucial point.

The Bible contains 2 sets of information that are relevant to this discussion. Rules for living, and a narrative that justifies those rules for living (ie "You should obey them because there is a god who had a son sends people to hell/heaven etc")

I can believe that the narrative is fictional, but evaluate whether or not the rules are being followed completely independently. If I am a Christian one day, and in your eyes eligible to debate whether the rules are being followed, then the next day, I decide that I don't accept the narrative justification, that doesn't change my ability to evaluate whether the rules are being followed, only whether I think the rules themselves make sense.

You have given no reason that a person believing that the justification for a set of rules is fictional changes how they are able to evaluate whether given behavior conforms to those rules. Here's an example.

The Book of Blorg
Chapter 1
The universe was created by a giant, intelligent rubber ball. He created the world and told everyone that they must wear underwear on their heads at all times.

The End

Let's say I was raised a Blorgian to believe in the giant rubber ball, I'm familiar with the literature and culture of Blorgianism, but one day, i decide that it's all silly and there never was a big rubber ball. I am still capable of turning to a practicing Blorgian and saying "Hey, if you believe in the big rubber ball, why aren't you wearing underwear on your head? That isn't very consistent"

Can you see in this simplified version of the bible why it is my understanding of the rules and mythology, not my belief in the mythology which allow me to evaluate whether the rules are being followed? I don't need to think that wearing underwear on your head is a good thing to point out that believing in the big rubber ball and failing to do so is inconsistent.

drkitten

20th April 2009, 11:13 AM

Quote a few passages, please.

Luke 19, the Parable of the Ten Minas.

1 Corinthians 16.

1 Timothy 6, specifically 1 Timothy 6:17-19

dafydd

20th April 2009, 11:18 AM

I've read worse. He was obviously very critical.

I once knew a window cleaner who was going through a bad,bad time.He heard the Children Of God preaching their nonsense and he got talking to them.They told him that Jesus was waiting for him and that he would be happy when he was with Jesus.He went home and hanged himself.A good man gone,Christianty is dangerous,it should carry a mental health warning.

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 11:23 AM

1) More importantly, a written set of rules.
2) How does anyone's behavior in society not effect everyone they deal with, whether or not they believe in Jesus?
3) OK
4) Here's the most crucial point.

Corrected:
1) A written record that includes a rule of behavior
2) Following That behavior only applies to people who accept that written record
3) That behavior is internally debated and discussed
4) An outside person who views the written record as fictional/false but wants to insist that the people who do accept the writings authority should follow the Outside persons interpretation or they are all hypocrites.

Cavemonster

20th April 2009, 11:31 AM

Corrected:
1) A written record that includes rules of behavior
2) Following That behavior only applies to people who accept that written record
3) That behavior is internally debated and discussed
4) An outside person who views the written record as fictional/false but wants to insist that the people who do accept the writings authority should follow the Outside persons interpretation or they are all hypocrites.

Okay, that works pretty well for Blorgianism (although you left out the important division of rules/mythology. I don't think the rules don't exist, just the characters that supposedly created them)

Are you saying that there is something illogical about pointing out the inconsistency of Blorgians who don't wear underwear on their heads? Why, you still have not made any case for why my acceptance of the mythology justifying a set of rules should change my ability to evaluate the internal consistency of those who do purport to follow those rules.

dafydd

20th April 2009, 11:33 AM

Is the idea that as a Christian you should take a vow of poverty being imposed on non-Christians?

The Catholic church has imposed poverty on miillions of people over the centuries.

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 11:33 AM

Let's say I was raised a Blorgian to believe in the giant rubber ball, I'm familiar with the literature and culture of Blorgianism, but one day, i decide that it's all silly and there never was a big rubber ball. I am still capable of turning to a practicing Blorgian and saying "Hey, if you believe in the big rubber ball, why aren't you wearing underwear on your head? That isn't very consistent"

Can you see in this simplified version of the bible why it is my understanding of the rules and mythology, not my belief in the mythology which allow me to evaluate whether the rules are being followed? I don't need to think that wearing underwear on your head is a good thing to point out that believing in the big rubber ball and failing to do so is inconsistent.

Whatever floats your boat, man. Theological discussions in a belief you don't believe in seems like a waste of time and energy to me.

It's probably just my Libertarian type streak coming out or something. But I could give a flying hoo-haa whether a True Blorgian should or shouldn't wear underwear on their head.

But I can understand how it might make someone feel better about themselves by criticizing, mocking, or correcting someone elses life and beliefs which have no bearing on anyone but the follower of the belief.

dafydd

20th April 2009, 11:34 AM

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 11:38 AM

The Catholic church has imposed poverty on miillions of people over the centuries.

They've forced people to take a vow of poverty?

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 11:41 AM

Christians always misquote the bible.

An irrelevant statement to make when Darat was correcting an atheists misquoting of the bible.

Mister Agenda

20th April 2009, 11:51 AM

Whatever floats your boat, man. Theological discussions in a belief you don't believe in seems like a waste of time and energy to me.

It's probably just my Libertarian type streak coming out or something. But I could give a flying hoo-haa whether a True Blorgian should or shouldn't wear underwear on their head.

But I can understand how it might make someone feel better about themselves by criticizing, mocking, or correcting someone elses life and beliefs which have no bearing on anyone but the follower of the belief.

Agreeing that trutherism isn't the best analogy, I don't point out the discrepancy in a truther's scenario so I'll feel better about myself, I do it because I hope it will help her understand why I don't agree with her. Someone else might do it in hopes it will lead to her 'conversion' from trutherism. Another might do it because they can't stand for someone to be wrong on teh interwebs.

For some reason, discussion forums seem to attract people happy to spend their time and energy debating all sorts of things.

It may be my own libertarian streak speaking, but it seems like a waste of time and energy to judge people for spending their time and energy on something I wouldn't waste my time and energy on. :D

Mister Agenda

20th April 2009, 11:54 AM

They've forced people to take a vow of poverty?

More likely Dafydd thinks the Church has impoverished many people through its policies. I don't know enough to comment on whether it's a valid point.

supercorgi

20th April 2009, 12:01 PM

The only policing of a group should come from within the group?

Outsiders need not say a word, because they're outsiders, and so can't understand us as well as we see ourselves?

You're not one of us, so you can't critique us?

I'd call that naive, and dangerous. Besides, I was once a member of the club. That I quit doesn't mean I don't know anything about it anymore. In fact, I know as much as you do, I'm sure.

Would you say that former actors know nothing about acting and cant crit a new bard trodding the boards?

That a former president hasn't got a clue about being president, now that a new one's in office?

A retired teacher has no right to offer any criticism of current teachers or teaching methods?

Sorry, but like it or not, many of us non-believers here once were believers, and we have insight to share. If that fact chaps your hide a bit, buy some cream for it.

I wanted to say what Slingblade did but she said it much better. Why should those of us who have studied something, become intimately familiar with the essential beliefs of a system, be blocked from commenting on it? There's a nice word to use in these situations -- "Objectivity." Often it easier to analyze the nature of something from outside than when you are surrounded by it. Yes, you may not see some of the nuances of a belief but your opinions are not predisposed to be influenced by your belief.

Cultural anthropologists are intimately aware of this problem - "the act of observing changes the observation" and there are techniques to offset this problem. I think that someone who was observing Animismist beliefs in say Africa would be able to form much more objective opinions if they were someone who had belief in no god, rather than someone who was an proponent of X-religion and believed that their X-religion was the one true way.

Mr Clingford

20th April 2009, 12:06 PM

More likely Dafydd thinks the Church has impoverished many people through its policies. I don't know enough to comment on whether it's a valid point.I'm not sure either.

Dafydd, would you expand on what you mean and what your evidence is.

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 12:11 PM

Agreeing that trutherism isn't the best analogy, I don't point out the discrepancy in a truther's scenario so I'll feel better about myself, I do it because I hope it will help her understand why I don't agree with her. Someone else might do it in hopes it will lead to her 'conversion' from trutherism. Another might do it because they can't stand for someone to be wrong on teh interwebs.

I understand a debate of the larger issues - especially those that are being put forth outwards towards others. And, of course there are exceptions to every rule. I've never said there wasn't. But it doesn't appear the OP is talking about a personal relationship with a Christian whom he's concerned for or anything. Instead it's a large generalization to reinforce his idea that because most Christians aren't living up to his interpretation of something they are hypocrites.

It may be my own libertarian streak speaking, but it seems like a waste of time and energy to judge people for spending their time and energy on something I wouldn't waste my time and energy on. :D
Maybe - I'm not so sure. The poster is putting his viewpoint out there intentionally in a forum designed for discussion - it's not like an internal discussion within a certain group is happening here about that certain groups rules or whatever.

I do 100% agree if someones views are imposing on you or something you should debate it or whatever.

An internal idea that has no relevance to you - waste of time. (By the way - if you have someone you care about involved in something like 9/11 Truther, Blorgian, or Christianity then perhaps a relevance is now created and you may have a concern. But again - the OP doesn't seem like that at all.)

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 12:12 PM

More likely Dafydd thinks the Church has impoverished many people through its policies. I don't know enough to comment on whether it's a valid point.

I think that might be - but if so it doesn't appear to be quite like the OP's example nor what I've been talking about.

supercorgi

20th April 2009, 12:15 PM

Why would an ex-Hindu even care? Seems like an awful lot of wasted time and energy to spend on instructing and helping Hindu's become better Hindu's when he doesn't even believe it anymore.

But hey - if you really want to become a teacher and example to help Christians become better Christians - go ahead.

Because as a former Hindu, he knows what Hinduism requires even though he no longer requires it of himself? Because he finds it offensive that people who call themselves Hindus aren't following the requirements of the religion that they profess? This is as ridiculous as saying that since I am a Democrat that I have no business expressing my concerns about a Republican administration? How bizarre! I'm only allowed to express opinions on subjects that I adhere to?

Death to freethought!

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 12:20 PM

I wanted to say what Slingblade did but she said it much better. Why should those of us who have studied something, become intimately familiar with the essential beliefs of a system, be blocked from commenting on it? There's a nice word to use in these situations -- "Objectivity." Often it easier to analyze the nature of something from outside than when you are surrounded by it. Yes, you may not see some of the nuances of a belief but your opinions are not predisposed to be influenced by your belief.

Cultural anthropologists are intimately aware of this problem - "the act of observing changes the observation" and there are techniques to offset this problem. I think that someone who was observing Animismist beliefs in say Africa would be able to form much more objective opinions if they were someone who had belief in no god, rather than someone who was an proponent of X-religion and believed that their X-religion was the one true way.

Who's saying people should be blocked from commenting?
Is the OP really about Objectivity? Honestly?

This is from my first post:

I always find it fascinating when atheists tell Christians how to be True Christians. And how to interpret something (I find it even more fascinating when atheists insist their interpretation is the correct one!)

If you were a Christian posting your concern I'd say "You first. Good luck. When you succeed - come teach and help me. And when I succeed I'll come teach and help you. But for now I'm still not even where the Young Rich Man is at with being perfect." Since I assume you Steve_S and MarkM are not Christians ... well, this is going to be a rather silly discussion since you've decided how a True Christian should be and apparently there are only 5% True Christians in your view. Or at least 5% True Christians in regards to that verse. Maybe of those 5% they aren't doing something else you think they should.

Apart from my currently repeating line of "Who cares about something like a Vow of Poverty when you don't follow the belief and it has no relevance to you" - what the theme or idea generally being put forth here seems to be "Christians aren't believing what I a non-Christian think they should believe. Those Hypocrites!"

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by A Christian Sceptic
Why would an ex-Hindu even care? Seems like an awful lot of wasted time and energy to spend on instructing and helping Hindu's become better Hindu's when he doesn't even believe it anymore.

But hey - if you really want to become a teacher and example to help Christians become better Christians - go ahead.

Because as a former Hindu, he knows what Hinduism requires even though he no longer requires it of himself? Because he finds it offensive that people who call themselves Hindus aren't following the requirements of the religion that they profess? This is as ridiculous as saying that since I am a Democrat that I have no business expressing my concerns about a Republican administration? How bizarre! I'm only allowed to express opinions on subjects that I adhere to?

Death to freethought!

Are you kidding? Where in the quote of mine you quoted did I say you can't do something - I just think it's silly and a waste of time.

So - once again - if you as a non-believer want to spend your time teaching Christians to be better Christians and/or Hindu's to be better Hindu's go ahead. And if you want to teach them how they need to dress, what they should eat, how much money they should have - go ahead. And Good luck.

And your analogy doesn't work, by the way. A better one: As a Democrat you telling Republicans that according to their written guidelines they are supposed to wear a suit to a meeting and that certain Republicans aren't really being Republicans if they don't wear a suit.

Go ahead and tell them all you want though.

Lonewulf

20th April 2009, 12:31 PM

More likely Dafydd thinks the Church has impoverished many people through its policies. I don't know enough to comment on whether it's a valid point.

Indulgences, taxes, tithes...

Most of what you see today is pretty voluntary. Once upon a time, it was a bit more strict.

supercorgi

20th April 2009, 12:32 PM

I do not like dogs. Cats are where it's at!

Also, I agree with RoadToad. Nobody should be allowed to buy or build a house larger than 1200sq ft. After all it's not like their spending their own money to do this.

If I've had 20+ children that the bible has told me to have (oh my poor uterus), I'm damn well going to build a house bigger than 1200 sq ft! :D

Cavemonster

20th April 2009, 12:35 PM

CS
I can give you my reasons for caring by posting the next two chapters of the book of Blorg.

Chapter 2
Ice Cream is an abomination to the giant rubber ball.

Chapter 3
Everyone who doesn't follow the giant rubber ball will spend eternity being tickled. It is the duty of Blorgians to make sure everyone follows the giant rubber ball.

I live in a world where proposition 8 has passed, where I am innudated with evangelism constantly. I live in a world where this set of rules based on a mythology I don't believe in is imposed on me by force. In the Blorgian sense, I live in a world where ice cream has been made illegal because of these rules I don't agree with.

I point out the hippocracy because Christians are forcing me to submit to these rules by changing the laws of my country. Yet they refuse to obey these rules themselves. That's an inconsistency that effects me.

supercorgi

20th April 2009, 12:43 PM

However, when I hear the words of a man such as Jesus, I hear him as a clever story-teller, a muse of morality. He was Socrates before there was Socrates.

:blush:Ahem...Socretes predated Jesus...:blush:

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 12:46 PM

CS
I can give you my reasons for caring by posting the next two chapters of the book of Blorg.

Quote:
Chapter 2
Ice Cream is an abomination to the giant rubber ball.

Chapter 3
Everyone who doesn't follow the giant rubber ball will spend eternity being tickled. It is the duty of Blorgians to make sure everyone follows the giant rubber ball.

I live in a world where proposition 8 has passed, where I am innudated with evangelism constantly. I live in a world where this set of rules based on a mythology I don't believe in is imposed on me by force. In the Blorgian sense, I live in a world where ice cream has been made illegal because of these rules I don't agree with.

I point out the hippocracy because Christians are forcing me to submit to these rules by changing the laws of my country. Yet they refuse to obey these rules themselves. That's an inconsistency that effects me.

None of this has anything to do with the OP Example - nor what I've ever said in this thread.

Look - if Blorgians don't eat Ice Cream because of Chapter 2 but they do eat Yogurt - I don't care what their members in general do. I do understand Mister Agenda's point - it may concern you that the person you care about won't get to enjoy ice cream - but once again, the OP is not about that. It's about a sweeping generalization on a topic irrelevant to the poster except to reinforce his ideas Christians are all just a bunch of hypocrites because they don't believe what he thinks they should believe.

I understand your point about someone imposing something on you and I've said as much quite a bit. But that's not the OP topic nor relevant to his example.

Niggle

20th April 2009, 12:47 PM

Nonsense.

Everyone loves puppies.

Except for people that aren't really people. They need to be "dealt with". ;)

Psst! Watch it! I made the mistake of talking about cute puppies once (the introduce-yourself thread) and had to stand in the bad-poster corner until the goat forgave me. You DON'T want to make the goat mad!

:boxedin:

Mister Agenda

20th April 2009, 12:50 PM

I understand a debate of the larger issues - especially those that are being put forth outwards towards others. And, of course there are exceptions to every rule. I've never said there wasn't. But it doesn't appear the OP is talking about a personal relationship with a Christian whom he's concerned for or anything. Instead it's a large generalization to reinforce his idea that because most Christians aren't living up to his interpretation of something they are hypocrites.

I agree the OP was worded in a way that could be reduced to 'most Christians are hypocrites', which isn't going to tend to bring out the best in our Christian readers, although he left the door open to be educated on why his interpretation was wrong. It's understandable why more of the thread is devoted to why he shouldn't have posted than why he is wrong, if he is, in fact, wrong. He also left out other possibilities between his interpretation and hypocrisy.

Maybe - I'm not so sure. The poster is putting his viewpoint out there intentionally in a forum designed for discussion - it's not like an internal discussion within a certain group is happening here about that certain groups rules or whatever.

I do 100% agree if someones views are imposing on you or something you should debate it or whatever.

An internal idea that has no relevance to you - waste of time. (By the way - if you have someone you care about involved in something like 9/11 Truther, Blorgian, or Christianity then perhaps a relevance is now created and you may have a concern. But again - the OP doesn't seem like that at all.)

I agree the OP is more the 'Christians are good with garlic sauce, discuss' type of comment than a humble invitation to discourse on a facet of Christianity. ;)

supercorgi

20th April 2009, 12:53 PM

:blush:Ahem...Socretes predated Jesus...:blush:

Sorry to belabor this...I didn't read a head and see that someone already corrected this. Keep posting!

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 12:59 PM

I agree the OP is more the 'Christians are good with garlic sauce, discuss' type of comment than a humble invitation to discourse on a facet of Christianity. ;)

Garlic Sauce ... mmmm ... It explains so much! :D

supercorgi

20th April 2009, 01:12 PM

Who's saying people should be blocked from commenting?
Is the OP really about Objectivity? Honestly?

Ah your dishonesty and obfuscating is amazing. You may not have said such a thing directly but that is definitely what you implied in your various posts.

I would never tell a Hindu how I think a Hindu should behave regardless of how much I know or don't know about Hinduism because I'm not a fellow believer.

Your premise, quite clearly I might add to most of the readers here, is that no one has a right to comment/criticize a rule/belief/law unless one adheres to that rule/belief/law. This is pure BS.

Your viewpoint is equivalent to this:

I'm happily driving down the road at 85 mph.

Sirens around me, blue lights flashing, I pull over.

"Maam, do you know that you were doing 85 mph in a 65 mph designated zone?"

"Well yes officer I do. But you see, I don't believe that 65 mph is the correct speed for this area. I don't BELIEVE in this."

"You're an American citizen aren't you?"

"Why yes I am but I don't believe that the speed limit should be 65 mph..."

How far would you think this would get me? If you proclaim to be a Christian, and the Christian law says you should give up all of your worldly goods, and you don't ...doesn't that make you a lawbreaker or at the very least a hypocrite? And why shouldn't a Canadian or a Mexican condemn me for breaking the law just because they aren't American citizens?

You're whole point, whether you state it directly or not, is that people should not comment/criticize a view point unless they hold that viewpoint. This is just stupid and would severly limit the amount of rational discourse in universities everywhere.

Mister Agenda

20th April 2009, 01:17 PM

Maybe she didn't know what the speed limit was, or had never had the legal consequences of breaking it explained to her. Just sayin' she doesn't have to be a hypocrite.

Cavemonster

20th April 2009, 01:24 PM

None of this has anything to do with the OP Example - nor what I've ever said in this thread.

Look - if Blorgians don't eat Ice Cream because of Chapter 2 but they do eat Yogurt - I don't care what their members in general do. I do understand Mister Agenda's point - it may concern you that the person you care about won't get to enjoy ice cream - but once again, the OP is not about that. It's about a sweeping generalization on a topic irrelevant to the poster except to reinforce his ideas Christians are all just a bunch of hypocrites because they don't believe what he thinks they should believe.

I understand your point about someone imposing something on you and I've said as much quite a bit. But that's not the OP topic nor relevant to his example.

NoNONONONONO

Are you illiterate?

Christians have these among their rules.
Homosexuality is wrong, Christians must give away their belongings

Blorgians have these among their rules
Ice Cream is wrong, Blorgians must wear underwear on their heads

Christians have made laws based on their rule book's teachings about homosexuality. Blorgians have made laws based on their book's teachings about ice cream.

Both groups obey their book's laws about other people but ignore a key law that would inconvenience them. To me, that begs the question, "How dare they apply their law to me, a person who doesn't believe, when they ignore the law themselves"

The OP, and I aren't concerned for the immortal souls of all Christians, behind the question of "Should all Christians take a vow of poverty" is the hope that pointing out the inconsistency will make believers question how they apply their faith, and whether they are honest or fair about it.

supercorgi

20th April 2009, 01:25 PM

Maybe she didn't know what the speed limit was, or had never had the legal consequences of breaking it explained to her. Just sayin' she doesn't have to be a hypocrite.

What?! Those signs are posted all over the place. Not to mention the "Work area...fines will be doubled..." that they leave up for about 3 years even after the work is finished. What's the deal with that?

slingblade

20th April 2009, 01:27 PM

For almost all teachings (and in particular the topic of the OP) - yeah.
Why would anyone not in the group even care?

You really can't figure it out? It honestly makes no sense to you?

I'm not sure why Christians taking a vow of poverty or not is dangerous to anyone.

Oh, don't play that game! You know that's not what I said! I said that thinking any group should only be critiqued/policed by its own members is naive and dangerous, AND you know that's what I said.

Wow, you get today's prize for best ingenuousness.

I don't think those analogies quite work.

Of course you don't, because they do work, and you're wrong.

I fail to see the insight from the OP. Sorry.

Again, of course you don't. You can't see much of anything when you close your eyes.

Mr Clingford

20th April 2009, 01:29 PM

...Christians have these among their rules.
Homosexuality is wrongMany do, some of us do not.

slingblade

20th April 2009, 01:31 PM

If one wants to succeed at anything, the source that one should look to for instruction and example surely isn't someone who has failed.

That's cute, Bob. No, really, it is.

It's cruel, ignorant, and rude, but it's cute, too.

Elizabeth I

20th April 2009, 01:32 PM

No.

You're analogy is missing something written that you believe is fictional so it's not quite the same as the OP by the way.

Ah.

OK, here's why your "Star Trek" analogy doesn't work:

Trekkers don't announce that their way is The Way to approach life, their fellow humans, and the ineffable.

They don't wave the Star Trek Fleet Manual in people's faces and tell them if they don't follow the Star Trek Way they will be condemned forever to the Klingon Empire, where Klingons will torture them unceasingly.

They don't persuade ignorant, superstitious, lonely people that if they will just send $1,000 for this 3-inch scale model of the Enterprise, then the next time an episode of "Star Trek" is on television, they can place their hands on the box when William Shatner or Leonard Nimoy is on screen and be miraculously healed of all their ailments.

They don't incessantly preach the Prime Directive and inform their audiences that failure to follow it will lead to being sent to the Klingon Empire, etc., etc., etc....

They don't go around the world telling inoffensive people that their societies and their harmless customs doom them to live forever in the Klingon Empire, etc., etc., etc....

When Trekkers start doing those things, but failing to live up to their own moral premises, then I will criticize them as hypocrites as well. But for now, they just dress up in their costumes and spend their time at Star Trek cons and generally don't bother anyone but each other and quite possibly their families and friends.

Now, do I think all Christians ought to take a vow of poverty? I have absolutely no opinion on the topic. But if and when I do I will not accept your dictum that I have no right to comment on those who do not follow the precepts of Christianity simply because I am no longer a practitioner.

Niggle

20th April 2009, 01:37 PM

Who's saying people should be blocked from commenting?
Is the OP really about Objectivity? Honestly?

I agree that the OP is probably too confrontational to make Christians who read it happy. But I don't think ACS's "It's none of your business!" response is helping, either. It sounds like the two of you are spitting at each other from opposite extremes of the issue.

It seems to me that the OP's problem is basically that 2 + 2 is not equalling 4:

2 = Christians follow the Bible
2 = The Bible says to do this (in this case, reject wealth, but it applies to any rule)
But Christians don't all reject wealth.

This is all true in general terms, but it makes a number of assumptions that may not be warranted. Properly, the question should be provoking a discussion of what those assumptions are and whether or not they are valid. Some people are trying to do just that.

Unfortunately, the well has already been poisoned by both sides. I doubt much else of value can come from this topic without some modification of the parameters.

Would the OP like to rephrase the original post to explore the issue of the seeming contradiction without offending those who actually do claim the title Christian? If it is a genuine puzzlement and wish for understanding, there must be a better way to state it. If offense was actually meant, shame on you.

Would ACS like to admit that a non-Christian can be just curious about this issue and want to know the story behind the seeming contradiction? The OP is calling it as he/she sees it, but he/she may not be seeing it correctly. You can provide the prescription lenses needed without expecting that the OP will use them to try to take over the institution under discussion.

I'm trying not to pick on anyone; I'm trying to help people stop talking past each other so that actual learning can take place. For the record, I was raised Roman Catholic. I gave it up for good when the child molestation scandal broke (we will not discuss the specifics here, to avoid a further derail). I was far enough along in my studies to be able to baptize new Catholics and act as a confirmation sponsor for my younger cousin. I'm pretty sure I understand the passage in question and how the RC, at least, interprets it. But before I express my opinion on the subject, I want to know if there's any constructive reason to do so.

Feel free to ignore me if you like. If you all want to keep bickering, that's fine.

Cavemonster

20th April 2009, 01:38 PM

Many do, some of us do not.

That's true, I'm really only addressing those who see that as a biblically mandated rule, but not poverty.

Part of what bugs me is that they choose to impose a questionable interpretation like God's opinion of homosexuality and enforce that on non-Christians, while ignoring a far more direct rule that would inconvenience them.

For Christians who are not biblical literalists and who don't legislate the rules of the Bible for non-Christians, this is a non issue. They aren't neccessarily guilty of hippocracy.

Niggle

20th April 2009, 01:42 PM

:mad:If one wants to succeed at anything, the source that one should look to for instruction and example surely isn't someone who has failed.

THAT was uncalled for. Having left one path for another does not in any way imply having failed to be able to follow the first path. It only means that the first path was no longer desirable. Maybe it was going the wrong way.

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 01:42 PM

NoNONONONONO

Are you illiterate?

Christians have these among their rules.
Homosexuality is wrong, Christians must give away their belongings

Blorgians have these among their rules
Ice Cream is wrong, Blorgians must wear underwear on their heads

Christians have made laws based on their rule book's teachings about homosexuality. Blorgians have made laws based on their book's teachings about ice cream.

Both groups obey their book's laws about other people but ignore a key law that would inconvenience them. To me, that begs the question, "How dare they apply their law to me, a person who doesn't believe, when they ignore the law themselves"

And your point (bolded above) is not related to the OP. Is a Christian making a Vow Of Poverty legally binding on non-Christians? Or is a Christian making a Vow Of Poverty illegal for a non-Christian?

The OP, and I aren't concerned for the immortal souls of all Christians, behind the question of "Should all Christians take a vow of poverty" is the hope that pointing out the inconsistency will make believers question how they apply their faith, and whether they are honest or fair about it.

I suppose I can type it one last time - Why do you care if they are inconsistent or not with something that doesn't affect you in any way?

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 01:44 PM

Of course you don't, because they do work, and you're wrong.

I can see a productive discussion ahead.

I don't think you're wrong - just silly.

Elizabeth I

20th April 2009, 01:44 PM

I suppose I can type it one last time - Why do you care if they are inconsistent or not with something that doesn't affect you in any way?

Because Christianity and its practice affects many people, often negatively. Please read my post above.

Cavemonster

20th April 2009, 01:46 PM

And your point (bolded above) is not related to the OP. Is a Christian making a Vow Of Poverty legally binding on non-Christians? Or is a Christian making a Vow Of Poverty illegal for a non-Christian?

I suppose I can type it one last time - Why do you care if they are inconsistent or not with something that doesn't affect you in any way?

*Cavemonster smacks forehead, mumbles something about leading horse to water*

linusrichard

20th April 2009, 01:49 PM

It's about a sweeping generalization on a topic irrelevant to the poster except to reinforce his ideas Christians are all just a bunch of hypocrites because they don't believe do what he thinks they should believe Christ has explicitly commanded in the Gospels which are held out by Christians as the true and infallible word of God.

A minor quibble, perhaps, but I fixed it anyway.

quixotecoyote

20th April 2009, 01:49 PM

For Christians who are not biblical literalists and who don't legislate the rules of the Bible for non-Christians, this is a non issue. They aren't neccessarily guilty of hippocracy.

All hail the hippocracy

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1026149ecd1b6d92cc.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16100)

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 01:50 PM

Ah.

OK, here's why your "Star Trek" analogy doesn't work:

Trekkers don't announce that their way is The Way to approach life, their fellow humans, and the ineffable.

They don't wave the Star Trek Fleet Manual in people's faces and tell them if they don't follow the Star Trek Way they will be condemned forever to the Klingon Empire, where Klingons will torture them unceasingly.

They don't persuade ignorant, superstitious, lonely people that if they will just send $1,000 for this 3-inch scale model of the Enterprise, then the next time an episode of "Star Trek" is on television, they can place their hands on the box when William Shatner or Leonard Nimoy is on screen and be miraculously healed of all their ailments.

They don't incessantly preach the Prime Directive and inform their audiences that failure to follow it will lead to being sent to the Klingon Empire, etc., etc., etc....

They don't go around the world telling inoffensive people that their societies and their harmless customs doom them to live forever in the Klingon Empire, etc., etc., etc....

All of the above is not relevant to this discussion as all the above are actions being imposed or directed towards Non-Trekkies

When Trekkers start doing those things, but failing to live up to their own moral premises, then I will criticize them as hypocrites as well. But for now, they just dress up in their costumes and spend their time at Star Trek cons and generally don't bother anyone but each other and quite possibly their families and friends.

Great. But regardless I think it's silly if you tell them True Trekkies should wear 100% cotton uniforms.

Now, do I think all Christians ought to take a vow of poverty? I have absolutely no opinion on the topic. But if and when I do I will not accept your dictum that I have no right to comment on those who do not follow the precepts of Christianity simply because I am no longer a practitioner.

I've never given any dictum. You can comment about religious beliefs and rules that don't affect you all you want. And you can comment on Trekkie beliefs and rules that don't affect you all you want. And I'll continue to be entertained by the amount of time you spend commenting on something that doesn't affect you at all and that you don't believe in.

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 01:55 PM

Because Christianity and its practice affects many people, often negatively. Please read my post above.

How does someones personal vow of poverty affect you? How does someone preferring to not wear a certain article of clothing affect you?

There are many religious practices that affect no one but the practioner. I highly doubt most of the 5% of Christians the OP thinks follows a vow of poverty affects the OP at all. Rather, it seems like most if not all the Christians he knows do not have a vow of poverty - and so I don't understand how them not doing it affects him negatively any more than a non-believer not taking a vow of poverty does.

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 01:59 PM

slingblade

20th April 2009, 02:09 PM

I can see a productive discussion ahead.

I don't think you're wrong - just silly.

No, you don't. You're just trying to insult me into silence.

I left Christianity for more than one reason, and one of them is this inability of so many Christians to actually follow the tenets of their own belief. I couldn't understand this while I was in it, but do now that I'm not.

I understand you, too.

Cavemonster

20th April 2009, 02:11 PM

All hail the hippocracy

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1026149ecd1b6d92cc.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16100)

That picture made this thread worth it. I admit, I'm a lazy speller, but shouldn't the word reference hippos? doesn't that make sense?

linusrichard

20th April 2009, 02:11 PM

slingblade

20th April 2009, 02:13 PM

Cavemonster

20th April 2009, 02:14 PM

Darat

20th April 2009, 02:19 PM

I never made a statement about "love they neighbor" - MarkeM did here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4634291#post4634291). He never explained the correlation he's drawn between "love they neighbor" and "wealth" when I asked about it.

You jumped in correcting MarekM (well - apperently you thought you were correcting me) by adding "as thyself" and now won't explain the correlation you're making between those verses and wealth. You don't have to explain anything, that's fine.

Nope it was certainly your statement that I was correcting - here is the post:

That's interesting - how is having wealth at odds with loving your neighbor?

Because the teaching is not "love thy neighbour" - it is "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". It's a pretty key point of most major Christan denominations' teachings - surprised you seem unaware of it! ;)

As you can see it is your misstatement of the Christian teaching that I was commenting on. As I said was quite surprised you were unaware of it.

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 02:20 PM

It's like you're not getting it on purpose.

Nonbeliever: Say, why is it I can't buy booze on Christmas, or marry someone of the same sex?

Believer: Because it is important that we conform our laws to those things that would please Jesus!

Nb: Didn't Jesus live a long time ago? How do you know what would please Jesus?

B: Everything in this Book comes from God, and is a perfect guide as to how to live our lives. It includes some of the words of Jesus Christ, which are of course the truth, since he was God and the Son of God.

Nb: Can I see that?

B: I suppose so, although I really don't know why --

Nb: Thanks. [flips through] You know, I don't see anything in here about buying booze on Christmas. I do see this part about taking and selling everything you have and giving it to the poor. Wow. You guys really do that?

B: Um.

Nb: So let me get this straight - in your desire to please this "Jesus," you're willing to inconvenience other people with Jesus-based laws against alcohol sales that aren't even in this book, but when it comes to an explicit and unambiguous command spoken by Christ himself, you don't worry so much about it?

B: Ho ho, it is ever so entertaining to see you worrying about hypocrisy that doesn't affect you regarding a religion you don't believe in! Do carry on, though, but I don't understand why you would worry about it.

Nb: (And I don't understand why you don't worry about it.)

Wow - all that typing and you just missed the entire point.

You missed it because your whole scenario starts with a Believer trying to impose their belief on a Non-Believer. NOT what the OP is about nor anything I've been discussing.

But let's try with your example:

If a Believer thinks a Believer should not buy Booze on Christmas - why do you care if he does or doesn't? Or even whether another Believer disagrees with that first Believer?

If a Believer thinks a Non-Believer should not buy Booze on Christmas - then I agree (as I have this entire thread) with all sentiments here about that - but that's not the OP's example nor anything I'm discussing. Start another thread called "If someone is trying to impose their beliefs on me should I speak up and debate that belief being imposed?" or something along those lines.

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 02:24 PM

Nope it was certainly your statement that I was correcting - here is the post:

What I don't understand is why someone who actually believes that what they do in this life will affect where they will be for all eternity would hold onto any wealth. Jesus was clearly against it. It's obviously at odds with "loving your neighbor." From what I've seen, it seems like many Christians go through mental gymnastics to avoid the implications of these teachings.

That's interesting - how is having wealth at odds with loving your neighbor?

Because the teaching is not "love thy neighbour" - it is "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". It's a pretty key point of most major Christan denominations' teachings - surprised you seem unaware of it!

As you can see it is your misstatement of the Christian teaching that I was commenting on. As I said was quite surprised you were unaware of it.

As you can see you left out MarekM's post.

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 02:28 PM

And your point (bolded above) is not related to the OP. Is a Christian making a Vow Of Poverty legally binding on non-Christians? Or is a Christian making a Vow Of Poverty illegal for a non-Christian?

Wow, TWO prizes for disingenuousness in the same day!

You could answer either or noth of these questions. It might lead to more interesting discussion since many here seem so concerned.:

Are Christians making a Vow Of Poverty Legal or Illegal for Non-Christians?

If not:

How does them taking a Vow of Poverty or not taking a Vow of Poverty affect you?

Who says it doesn't affect me?

Is a Christian taking a Vow of Poverty or not taking a Vow of Poverty affecting you somehow?

Mister Agenda

20th April 2009, 02:30 PM

How does someones personal vow of poverty affect you?

Well, if the 76% of Americans in the USA who profess to be Christians would give just 10% their wealth to the poor, they could wipe out poverty as we know it in America and make a good dent in it elsewhere. If they gave it all away it would radically change the world. I suspect the collapse of our economy would follow shortly, but the point is, we're not talking about someone's personal vow of poverty. We're talking about hundreds of millions of people-just in America-taking a vow of poverty. Just because of their numbers, almost anything Christians agree on affects everyone else.

I jest, though, it's an outlandish scenario. While it might be beneficial for Christians (and others) to live a little more simply and be more charitable, it's a disaster if too many people choose poverty, that doesn't just redistribute wealth, it destroys it. Unless your goal is to reduce everyone to Third World poverty, you don't want too many people taking vows of poverty.

And I would immediately tell a trekkie in a blue uniform who claimed to be dressed as a security officer that she's wearing the wrong color. I mean, you kind of expect someone who claims to be a trekkie to know basic information from the series, don't you? Maybe there's a good reason for her to be wearing blue. Maybe security wore blue in a particular movie or series. If so, I would expect her to be able to explain that to me. If she can't I would have trouble considering her much of a trekkie if someone with only a moderate interest in the show knows more about Star Trek than her.

Mister Agenda

20th April 2009, 02:35 PM

Wow - all that typing and you just missed the entire point.

You missed it because your whole scenario starts with a Believer trying to impose their belief on a Non-Believer. NOT what the OP is about nor anything I've been discussing.

But let's try with your example:

If a Believer thinks a Believer should not buy Booze on Christmas - why do you care if he does or doesn't? Or even whether another Believer disagrees with that first Believer?

If a Believer thinks a Non-Believer should not buy Booze on Christmas - then I agree (as I have this entire thread) with all sentiments here about that - but that's not the OP's example nor anything I'm discussing. Start another thread called "If someone is trying to impose their beliefs on me should I speak up and debate that belief being imposed?" or something along those lines.

Y'know, I almost bought some Hornsby's Apple Crisp Cider yesterday ('cause I'm a manly man!), but then I remembered it was Sunday, and my county doesn't allow the sale of alcoholic beverages on Sunday.

Darat

20th April 2009, 02:37 PM

As you can see you left out MarekM's post.

Well of course I did as I was not interested (sorry MarekM!) in replying to MarekM just correcting your misstatement of a pretty common and some would say key Christian teaching. This was based on my understanding that you label yourself a Christian and I was hoping my correction would help you understand Christianity a bit better in future.

If I was wrong and you aren't a Christian or if you don't want to be better informed about Christianity fair enough.

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 02:39 PM

Well, if the 76% of Americans in the USA who profess to be Christians would give just 10% their wealth to the poor, they could wipe out poverty as we know it in America and make a good dent in it elsewhere. If they gave it all away it would radically change the world. I suspect the collapse of our economy would follow shortly, but the point is, we're not talking about someone's personal vow of poverty. We're talking about hundreds of millions of people-just in America-taking a vow of poverty. Just because of their numbers, almost anything Christians agree on affects everyone else.

I jest, though, it's an outlandish scenario. While it might be beneficial for Christians (and others) to live a little more simply and be more charitable, it's a disaster if too many people choose poverty, that doesn't just redistribute wealth, it destroys it. Unless your goal is to reduce everyone to Third World poverty, you don't want too many people taking vows of poverty.

Thanks. Your scenario would definitely affect everyone.

Now what's your thoughts on whether Christians should eat shellfish? (Kidding! Please don't open that can of worms.)

And I would immediately tell a trekkie in a blue uniform who claimed to be dressed as a security officer that she's wearing the wrong color. I mean, you kind of expect someone who claims to be a trekkie to know basic information from the series, don't you? Maybe there's a good reason for her to be wearing blue. Maybe security wore blue in a particular movie or series. If so, I would expect her to be able to explain that to me. If she can't I would have trouble considering her much of a trekkie if someone with only a moderate interest in the show knows more about Star Trek than her.

:)

Safe-Keeper

20th April 2009, 02:39 PM

Wow - all that typing and you just missed the entire point.

You missed it because your whole scenario starts with a Believer trying to impose their belief on a Non-Believer. NOT what the OP is about nor anything I've been discussing.

But let's try with your example:

If a Believer thinks a Believer should not buy Booze on Christmas - why do you care if he does or doesn't? Or even whether another Believer disagrees with that first Believer?

If a Believer thinks a Non-Believer should not buy Booze on Christmas - then I agree (as I have this entire thread) with all sentiments here about that - but that's not the OP's example nor anything I'm discussing. Start another thread called "If someone is trying to impose their beliefs on me should I speak up and debate that belief being imposed?" or something along those lines.
I get that you're dodging the question.

The OP of the thread asks whether the Bible asks Christians to make a poverty vow. If the Bible does indeed instruct this, then it does. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. No one is trying to force you to sell everything you own and give it to the poor, we're discussing whether or not Jesus, should He exist,wants you to do.

roger

20th April 2009, 02:41 PM

Is a Christian taking a Vow of Poverty or not taking a Vow of Poverty affecting you somehow?Of course. If my christian neighbors would give away their riches to their neighbors (me!), I'd be better off.

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 02:41 PM

Y'know, I almost bought some Hornsby's Apple Crisp Cider yesterday ('cause I'm a manly man!), but then I remembered it was Sunday, and my county doesn't allow the sale of alcoholic beverages on Sunday.

What a bummer.

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 02:45 PM

Well of course I did as I was not interested (sorry MarekM!) in replying to MarekM just correcting your misstatement of a pretty common and some would say key Christian teaching. This was based on my understanding that you label yourself a Christian and I was hoping my correction would help you understand Christianity a bit better in future.

If I was wrong and you aren't a Christian or if you don't want to be better informed about Christianity fair enough.

How did I misstate what MarekM posted? I was interested in how having wealth is not "loving your neighbor" as he put it. He never responded. Oh well. You appeared to agree with him and appeared that you were saying "as thyself" is why having wealth is not "loving your neighbor" - maybe not? If not - what more is there to discuss?

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 02:49 PM

I get that you're dodging the question.

The OP of the thread asks whether the Bible asks Christians to make a poverty vow. If the Bible does indeed instruct this, then it does. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. No one is trying to force you to sell everything you own and give it to the poor, we're discussing whether or not Jesus, should He exist,wants you to do.

And why are you discussing that? (Sorry couldn't resist.)

At any rate - unless someone adds something new I think I'm done. It was interesting. I'll just sit back now and listen to the theological debate between non-Christians about this topic. I'm sure it will be some interesting perspectives.

Safe-Keeper

20th April 2009, 02:51 PM

I suppose we should also end all other discussions on the forums, then.

I'm not Tibetan or Chinese, so let's never again discuss Tibet or the PRC.
I'm not going to have an abortion, so I won't discuss abortion until it starts affecting me.
I'm not American, so I'll never discuss anything US-related.

Darat

20th April 2009, 02:55 PM

How did I misstate what MarekM posted? I was interested in how having wealth is not "loving your neighbor" as he put it. He never responded. Oh well. You appeared to agree with him and appeared that you were saying "as thyself" is why having wealth is not "loving your neighbor" - maybe not? If not - what more is there to discuss?

In your post you misquoted or misstated a common Christian teaching, I corrected your misstatement. It is now obvious that you did not realise that MarekM had misstated a commonly held to be key Christian teaching. Given that you label yourself a Christian I am now even more surprised that you are not more thankful to have had your ignorance of this particular Christian teaching exposed.

I would have thought that you would want to become better informed about the teachings of Christianity? Or is it that the "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" teaching is one of those teachings that you do not think is important for a Christian to follow or just doesn't apply to your particular form of Christianity so you had forgotten about it and you mistook MarekM's misstatement for a different teaching?

Darat

20th April 2009, 02:57 PM

And why are you discussing that? (Sorry couldn't resist.)

At any rate - unless someone adds something new I think I'm done. It was interesting. I'll just sit back now and listen to the theological debate between non-Christians about this topic. I'm sure it will be some interesting perspectives.

Before you go could you state whether I am a "Christian" in this debate or not? After all according to the Christian denomination in which I was baptised and brought up in I am and forever (literally) will be a Christian.

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 03:00 PM

In your post you misquoted or misstated a common Christian teaching, I corrected your misstatement. It is now obvious that you did not realise that MarekM had misstated a commonly held to be key Christian teaching. Given that you label yourself a Christian I am now even more surprised that you are not more thankful to have had your ignorance of this particular Christian teaching exposed.

I would have thought that you would want to become better informed about the teachings of Christianity? Or is it that the "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" teaching is one of those teachings that you do not think is important for a Christian to follow or just doesn't apply to your particular form of Christianity so you had forgotten about it and you mistook MarekM's misstatement for a different teaching?

Enlighten me then - how is having wealth not "loving your neighbor" or not "love your neighbor as thyself"?

MarekM used the phrase "love your neighbor" you used "love your neighbor as thyself" neither has explained anything about it.

I started a new thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4637937#post4637937). Please expand your thoughts. Thanks.

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 03:02 PM

themusicteacher

20th April 2009, 03:02 PM

Well if the dates the Christians claim are correct then Jesus appears what about 400 years after Socrates was meant to have lived?

Yeah, I wasn't thinking. I'm stoopid...:D

Darat

20th April 2009, 03:04 PM

Do you consider yourself a Christian?

Is that a yes or a no?

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 03:10 PM

Is that a yes or a no?

How am I suppose to know what you consider yourself without you telling me?

I might add - that from the postings I've read you appear to not consider yourself a Christian. But again - unless you tell me how would I know?

Darat

20th April 2009, 03:14 PM

I've never asked you that question.

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 03:22 PM

I've never asked you that question.

What you consider yourself is what matters. If you say your a Christian I'll assume you're a Christian. Until you tell me I can only make some assumptions based on your posts on what you view yourself as. If they are the wrong assumptions I'm sure you'll correct me.

Darat

20th April 2009, 03:29 PM

What you consider yourself is what matters. If you say your a Christian I'll assume you're a Christian. Until you tell me I can only make some assumptions based on your posts on what you view yourself as. If they are the wrong assumptions I'm sure you'll correct me.

Again you have not answered the question I put to you, of course that is your prerogative and I was only mildly curious about what your answer would be.

A Christian Sceptic

20th April 2009, 03:37 PM

Again you have not answered the question I put to you, of course that is your prerogative and I was only mildly curious about what your answer would be.

Your question was whether I think you're a Christian. My answer is: I don't know until you tell me.

slingblade

20th April 2009, 03:39 PM

Are Christians making a Vow Of Poverty Legal or Illegal for Non-Christians?

Is what legal for me in what way? That syntax is badly off. Your use of the term "legal" is also confusing and obfuscating. I don't suggest you reframe it, though, as it's off the point.

As a reminder, here is what the OP asked, and to what my comments have related:

"'Sell everything you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.'" - (Jesus is saying that worldly possessions are meaningless and if he really believes in him, he will give everything up and dedicate his life to God and helping others)

Now, 95% of Christians have not "sold everything, given it to the poor, and followed the teachings of Jesus." My interpretation is that they don't believe enough to give up what they have. Is my interpretation of this verse wrong? Or are most Christians hypocrites?

There is, of course, a fallacy of excluded middle here. There are other reasons why this particular verse is ignored, aside from faulty reading or hypocritical followers.

And yet, it is still an intriguing and important question, in both a general and a specific sense:

If one of the reasons my gay stepson can't get legally married is because of a religious objection, then I expect the members of said religion who put forth this objection to strictly adhere to every other tenet of their faith, before they expect me or mine to obey even one of them.

If I can't buy alcohol on certain days because of a religious objection, then I expect those who put forth that objection to strictly adhere to every other tenet, etc.

I just find it wrong to tell other people to obey one's rules when one doesn't obey them all, oneself. Why does that happen, I wonder?

Also, it's a question that's bothered me since I was religious: why don't Christians do everything they're told to do? Really, why not? And yes, I tried to, but I know why I failed at some of them. As a Christian, though, I wondered why it was that most of us failed at the same ones, and so often?

I still do.

If not:

How does them taking a Vow of Poverty or not taking a Vow of Poverty affect you?

As I said above, I am affected when members of any religion try to make their particular practices part of my life. It seems only fair that those who try to impose the rules should follow the rules, doesn't it? All the rules?

supercorgi

20th April 2009, 03:50 PM

Before you go could you state whether I am a "Christian" in this debate or not? After all according to the Christian denomination in which I was baptised and brought up in I am and forever (literally) will be a Christian.

Shucks, I guess I'm stuck there too. I was baptised and the underwent Confirmation (mostly to make my mom happy) so I guess I'm doomed to be listed as a Christian for the rest of my life. (Is there some sort of de-Christianfying ceremony that I can go through?)

linusrichard

20th April 2009, 04:39 PM

Wow - all that typing and you just missed the entire point.

The entire point. That's interesting. Actually "the entire point" is just a derail anyway. Let's say I concede arguendo that I have no good reason to worry about whether or not Christians obey Christ's commands. I might as well, since you're either not going to get it or not going to admit that you get it. But it doesn't matter. I don't need a good reason; I'm still allowed to wonder. So let's get back to the OP: should Christians take a vow of poverty?

You post in a scornful tone about the theological debate between non-Christians. Well, why not put the E in JREF, give up the irrelevant, if slightly interesting, debate about whether and why non-Christians ought to care about this, and answer the question?

Lonewulf

20th April 2009, 07:51 PM

Wow - all that typing and you just missed the entire point.

You missed it because your whole scenario starts with a Believer trying to impose their belief on a Non-Believer. NOT what the OP is about nor anything I've been discussing.

But let's try with your example:

If a Believer thinks a Believer should not buy Booze on Christmas - why do you care if he does or doesn't? Or even whether another Believer disagrees with that first Believer?I'm in Texas. There's no booze to be had on certain "holy days".

Yet I'm supposed to bow my head and accept this, while religious peeps can't even follow their own "infallible" book.

And then you say that it's strange that I remark upon this.

Sad.

If a Believer thinks a Non-Believer should not buy Booze on Christmas - then I agree (as I have this entire thread) with all sentiments here about that - but that's not the OP's example nor anything I'm discussing. Start another thread called "If someone is trying to impose their beliefs on me should I speak up and debate that belief being imposed?" or something along those lines.

I think you're missing out on the part where we live in a country where religious freaks are out to reduce as many freedoms in the name of religion as they can possibly get away with in the U.S. republic.

See: Evangelists.