If you're a Christian who likes money ...

[Abdul Alhazred]

Just got an email from these folks ==> http://managementopp.com/

Seems to be your basic work at home scam.

No Sales Experience Necessary -- or desired, I reckon.

All about how much money you'll make without really telling you what you have to do to get it.

What specifically is Christian? They say they are.

I'll have to give personal details for the FREE Entrepreneurial Package to find out more. They don't want to give it all away to random infidels.

What they want to know:

First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Address
City
State
Zip
Age (must be at least 18 )
Phone
Additional Phone (not required, but helpful)
Personal Credit


Emphasis added. It's a drop down list with three items:
Bad Credit
Moderate Credit
Good Credit

I'll be giving some phony details (with bad credit) and report back.

I suppose that there are be people who would be suspicious of get-rich-quick schemes -- "of the world" you see -- but pre-qualified as gullible ninnies when it comes to something called Christian.

[Wowbagger]

Didn't the Bible say that it was "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter Heaven", or something like that?

[quixotecoyote]

Didn't the Bible say that it was "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter Heaven", or something like that?

You want to see Christians spinning like tops, google that phrase.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Didn't the Bible say that it was "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter Heaven", or something like that?

No danger of these suckers getting rich, so that's in order.

[Wowbagger]

No danger of these suckers getting rich, so that's in order.
My point is: Why, then, would a Christian even want money?

[The Atheist]

Didn't the Bible say that it was "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter Heaven", or something like that?

Exactly that, but not just in the bible, those are Big J's own words. Matt 10:25

Nowadays, we can make much bigger needles.

[ksbluesfan]

The spin on that passage falls on the eye of the needle. Kenneth Copeland claims that there was a gate into Jerusalem that was called "the eye of the needle" due to it's shape. While a man could pass through the gate easily, a camel had to get on it's knees to crawl through the gate. Get it? If a rich man wants to get to heaven, he has to do it on his knees (meaning though prayer). Send Kenneth Copeland a check for $1000 today, and it will come back to you tenfold!

[quixotecoyote]

The spin on that passage falls on the eye of the needle. Kenneth Copeland claims that there was a gate into Jerusalem that was called "the eye of the needle" due to it's shape. While a man could pass through the gate easily, a camel had to get on it's knees to crawl through the gate. Get it? If a rich man wants to get to heaven, he has to do it on his knees (meaning though prayer). Send Kenneth Copeland a check for $1000 today, and it will come back to you tenfold!


The other spin (more believable) is that a camel is a mistranslation of 'rope' meaning a thick piece of rope or cable. The same sort of logic applies, that it is difficult but possible.

[JoeEllison]

The spin on that passage falls on the eye of the needle. Kenneth Copeland claims that there was a gate into Jerusalem that was called "the eye of the needle" due to it's shape. While a man could pass through the gate easily, a camel had to get on it's knees to crawl through the gate. Get it? If a rich man wants to get to heaven, he has to do it on his knees (meaning though prayer). Send Kenneth Copeland a check for $1000 today, and it will come back to you tenfold!

So, he's claiming that people in the time of Jesus were too goddamned stupid to properly build a gate? But, at the same time, we should trust their superstitious ramblings? :rolleyes:

[The Atheist]

The other spin (more believable) is that a camel is a mistranslation of 'rope' meaning a thick piece of rope or cable. The same sort of logic applies, that it is difficult but possible.

Sorry, but no. Jesus was clearly saying that it isn't just difficult, it's impossible.

The full text starts a few verses earlier [and it's Matt 19:25, not 10:25, mea culpa]:

19:21. Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

19:23. Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven

19:24. And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

link (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat019.htm)

[quixotecoyote]

Sorry, but no. Jesus was clearly saying that it isn't just difficult, it's impossible.

The full text starts a few verses earlier [and it's Matt 19:25, not 10:25, mea culpa]:

19:21. Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

19:23. Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven

19:24. And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

link (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat019.htm)

I agree. If you reread my post, you will see I was explaining the spin, not promoting it.

[sphenisc]

Sorry, but no. Jesus was clearly saying that it isn't just difficult, it's impossible.

The full text starts a few verses earlier [and it's Matt 19:25, not 10:25, mea culpa]:

19:21. Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

19:23. Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven

19:24. And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

link (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat019.htm)


In what way is it clear that Jesus wasn't speaking hyperbolically?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Update: No email at my throwaway yahoo address.

Maybe later.



If the camel were a rope, it still couldn't pass through the eye of a needle, but it would be a less evocative image.

[The Atheist]

I agree. If you reread my post, you will see I was explaining the spin, not promoting it.

I realise that, it was the "difficult but not impossible" which isn't quite right.

In what way is it clear that Jesus wasn't speaking hyperbolically?

19:21. Pretty hard to imagine that as hyperbole: "sell all you own and give the money to the poor".

Of course, Jesus may well have been the greatest practical joker of all time whose best mate owned the Jerusalem second hand centre.

[sphenisc]

I
19:21. Pretty hard to imagine that as hyperbole: "sell all you own and give the money to the poor".


I think it was pretty obvious I was referring to 19:24;19:23 states that it would be very difficult, and 19:21 being a specific instruction provides a method for dealing with the difficulty.

[The Atheist]

Whoa. That's the kind of answer I'd answer I'd expect from Sylvia Browne or Benny Hinn. Without me having to quote the entire chapter for context, it works like this:

A. Jesus says, to get to heaven you must renounce all worldly goods.

B. He then gives a metaphor saying that you must renounce all worldly goods to get to heaven.

If A isn't hyperbolic, which it isn't, B isn't hyperbolic either. He was making a simple statement for simple minds to understand: have lots of money = no heaven. He completely rescinds it all on the mount or somewhere and Paul blows it to shreds when the ghosty Jesus gives him an update a bit later on, which is extremely lucky for lots and lots of christians.

[Wolfman]

Well, for another perspective on this...

...in his book, "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah" (which is an outstanding scholarly work about the political and cultural environment at the time of Christ's life) by Alfred Edersheim, he explains that there was, in fact, a gate called the Eye of the Needle. It was a small gate, suitable for pedestrians only. Not only was it not very high, it also was quite narrow. A camel simply would not be able to pass through it (unless, perhaps, it was a baby camel...or you chopped it up into pieces, first).

Jesus didn't just choose a random image (and if you think about it, its a fairly bizarre image); according to Edersheim, various expressions about the Eye of the Needle Gate were in common colloquial use at the time, and anyone contemporary with Christ would have understood immediately what he was saying. Furthermore, the Eye of the Needle Gate was generally used only by the common people (that is, the people Jesus was talking to at the time).

In other words, Jesus didn't come up with some random and apparently bizarre comparison; he used a common metaphor, speaking the colloquial language of the people. More than that, since only the common people generally used the gate, not the wealthy, it would have reinforced the idea that it was they, the common people, who would enter Heaven.

As to Copeland, he's taken a small tidbit of fact, and twisted it to fit his own particular theology; a useful thing to do, since he himself fits very comfortably into the category of the "rich man" that Jesus was talking about.

[sphenisc]

Whoa. That's the kind of answer I'd answer I'd expect from Sylvia Browne or Benny Hinn. Without me having to quote the entire chapter for context, it works like this:

A. Jesus says, to get to heaven you must renounce all worldly goods.

B. He then gives a metaphor saying that you must renounce all worldly goods to get to heaven.

If A isn't hyperbolic, which it isn't, B isn't hyperbolic either. He was making a simple statement for simple minds to understand: have lots of money = no heaven. He completely rescinds it all on the mount or somewhere and Paul blows it to shreds when the ghosty Jesus gives him an update a bit later on, which is extremely lucky for lots and lots of christians.

Ah, an ad hom, followed by a 'paraphrasing' of the actual verses when a direct quotation of them would have been just as easy.
Perhaps you'd like to compare your version with the original and try to identify the points where you've equivocated, glossed over details and committed logical fallacies. Then after that you can look at the second verse.

[Safe-Keeper]

You want to see Christians spinning like tops, google that phrase.Hilarity (http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&q=%22easier+for+a+camel+to+pass+through+the+eye+of +a+needle%2C+than+for+a+rich+man+to+enter+Heaven%2 2&btnG=S%C3%B8k&meta=).

Waitaminute, if they can turn down Scripture as metaphor, badly translated, and/or badly phrased... can't we do the same thing? 'Oh, He said atheists will burn in Hell, but how do we know that's not hyperbole?'. Or 'what do you mean, I can't work on Saturdays/Sundays? How do you know 'Sabbath' in this context refers to a day and not, for example, a place? 'Thou shalt not work in the Holy Sabbath Strip Club' could be just as likely, no?

In other words, Jesus didn't come up with some random and apparently bizarre comparison; he used a common metaphor, speaking the colloquial language of the people. More than that, since only the common people generally used the gate, not the wealthy, it would have reinforced the idea that it was they, the common people, who would enter Heaven.Thanks. Very interesting.

[Wolfman]

I think it was pretty obvious I was referring to 19:24;19:23 states that it would be very difficult, and 19:21 being a specific instruction provides a method for dealing with the difficulty.
Sorry, I'm having a problem following your logic here. Yes, the way you explain it, it sounds reasonable, perhaps -- Jesus makes a statement, then explains that it would be difficult, and then gives an instruction for how to deal with the difficultly.

The problem is, the verses happen in the exact opposite order. You've actually had to reverse the order in order to make your argument.

What actually happens is that Jesus first makes a statement of (what is according to him) fact -- that you should give up your wealth, and follow him. He then reinforces this by stating that a rich man (ie. a man who has not done what he just instructed people to do) will not enter heaven. And he then reinforces it even more by using an illustration to demonstrate the impossibility of a rich man entering heaven.

Were this "hyperbole", that would mean that Christ was saying, "Hey, yeah, rich people can get into heaven, too...its just more difficult for them". He'd be exaggerating in order to make a point. But it seems pretty obvious to me (regardless of my personal beliefs in this regard) that Christ meant exactly what he said here -- that to follow him meant to give up your earthly possessions. Refusal to give up earthly possessions meant you were not following him; and not following him meant you could not get into heaven.

A hint -- when the only way to make your argument seem reasonable is to reverse the entire order of the verses being discussed, it is a fairly reliable indication that your argument may have some holes in it.

[Safe-Keeper]

The Bible in a nutshell: if it doesn't appear to say what you want it to, twist it until it does. Then praise it for providing you with an unchanging, perfect moral standard that coincidentally is identical to your wants for it.

[The Atheist]

Ah, an ad hom, followed by a 'paraphrasing' of the actual verses when a direct quotation of them would have been just as easy.
Perhaps you'd like to compare your version with the original and try to identify the points where you've equivocated, glossed over details and committed logical fallacies. Then after that you can look at the second verse.

As Wolfman has saved me the trouble, I'll just leave you with one of these: ;)

:pythonfoot:

[Safe-Keeper]

Just found this gem of an evasive action attempt here (http://www.amazon.com/tag/christianity/forum/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg7/104-5001484-4820755?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx77WQHU8YS50Z&cdPage=8&cdThread=Tx2WQDK3ODTM5CN&displayType=tagsDetail):
Mr.Pyle This Is not True. King Soloman was The Richest man to ever live ...Donald Trump could only dream of King Soloman's wealth. There Is nothing wrong with having money...But God has a problem with money having you. The man that Jesus told to go and sell all that he had...If you'll read It says that the man left very grieved...Meaning that money was his Idol. So to speak. Being poor Is a curse, We're to prosper as our soul prospers. Mr. Pyle we can take anything and make It an Idol....How can we be a blessing to others If we don't have the financial means to do so ?This guy could duck a bullet fired without warning a centimeter from his head, with dodging skills like that.

OK, so the Biblical message that you won't enter Heave if you don't sell everything you own is void because:
King Solomon (solo? who?) was far richer than Donald Trump (er, so?).
God has a problem with money having you (since you won't enter Heaven before you've sold everything you own, yes, I'd agree with that:rolleyes: ).
This one guy who sold all his stuff was sad afterwards (so?).
This somehow means he worshiped his money.
Being poor is a curse and we are meant to prosper (this in direct contradiction of the Bible and the word of Jesus, both of which he probably claims to follow:rolleyes:).
When you've sold everything you own, you can't be a blessing to others as you have no money (er, so?).Some people scare me.

[The Atheist]

King Solomon (solo? who?) was far richer than Donald Trump (er, so?).

Not to mention owning an awful lot [1000, I think] of concubines.

Not sure how that gets by the adultery clause. Maybe it doesn't count if you keep them as sex slaves.

[quixotecoyote]

Not to mention owning an awful lot [1000, I think] of concubines.

Not sure how that gets by the adultery clause. Maybe it doesn't count if you keep them as sex slaves.

Given that Solomon was eventually rejected my God, her argument shows a startling ignorance of her own book.

[Wolfman]

Just found this gem of an evasive action attempt here (http://www.amazon.com/tag/christianity/forum/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg7/104-5001484-4820755?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx77WQHU8YS50Z&cdPage=8&cdThread=Tx2WQDK3ODTM5CN&displayType=tagsDetail):
This guy could duck a bullet fired without warning a centimeter from his head, with dodging skills like that.

OK, so the Biblical message that you won't enter Heave if you don't sell everything you own is void because:
King Solomon (solo? who?) was far richer than Donald Trump (er, so?).
God has a problem with money having you (since you won't enter Heaven before you've sold everything you own, yes, I'd agree with that:rolleyes: ).
This one guy who sold all his stuff was sad afterwards (so?).
This somehow means he worshiped his money.
Being poor is a curse and we are meant to prosper (this in direct contradiction of the Bible and the word of Jesus, both of which he probably claims to follow:rolleyes:).
When you've sold everything you own, you can't be a blessing to others as you have no money (er, so?).Some people scare me.
Ah, this takes us into the question of the terrible inconsistency of scriptural teachings. Besides being filthy rich, Solomon also had hundreds of wives -- given to him by God. Yet by Jesus' time, monogamy was the standard, and marriage in the New Testament is always discussed as between one man and one woman.

Truth is, if you want to find scriptures that support the idea that it is okay for Christians to be wealthy (or even to teach that a 'good Christian' will be wealthy, as is the message of many modern televangelists), it is easy enough to find them. I just would not consider this particular selection of verses to fall within that category.

ETA: oops, responded before reading other responses...TA already brought up the multiple wives issue

[Starthinker]

Not to derail the derail, but I got about 20 of those messages yesterday (of course I get all mail addressed to admin, webmaster, and abuse for my domain, and they were clearly spamming common domain addresses). All with different headings, from different people, and all in a font so large that only the first couple of words could be seen in the preview pane. It took an hour or so but our anti-spam appliance finally picked them up. I hate to think how something as useful as e-mail spawned two complete industries - spamming and stopping spam. Maybe they're in cahoots with each other.

[Pyrts]

This one is a rather typical check kiting scam, where the person is supposed to receive and ship materials. They are "overpaid" with fake bank drafts. The scammers end up with goods (and any cash they honestly sent on) and the dupe ends up holding the bag on this one.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Got 2 replies.

BTW, Gerald isn't my name or my usual alias anywhere.

First Letter: Gerald, Just getting back to your request regarding the position with my company

Hi Gerald:

You recently responded to our ad where we were looking for a part-time manager candidate to represent our company. Thank you for sending your profile.

I would like to conduct a brief phone interview with you ASAP.

In the meantime, please review my website at: http://www.FreedomIn4Steps.com/lmccleary.

To schedule your interview, please call my toll free number @ (888) 624-2469. There will be a three-minute message from our senior partner Greg Montoya that you should find very intriguing. Once you listen to this exciting message, please indicate TWO different time slots at which you would be available for a 10 to 15 minute phone interview. You may also reply to this email if it is more convenient.

You will love the fact that our proven business opportunity is now entering its third successful decade and is driven by a high technology product line that has been used in sophisticated applications ranging from the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station to protecting the Pentagon post 911.

Gerald, thank you once again for submitting your profile. I look forward to speaking with you shortly.

Thank you in advance for leaving the two time slots for your interview availability.

Best of Success,

Linda McCleary

Success Marketing

Looks like they're in a big hurry for Gerald to call them. Anyone please feel free. I don't feel like taking the time to bait them myself.

Also notice there's nothing about being Christian in the follow-up letter nor on the front page of the linked website. So this outfit is not specifically fishing for Christian suckers, though they make a special effort for them. :rolleyes:

Anybody out there ever heard of this Linda McCleary?


Second letter (The testimonials have photos):Sorry Gerald, forgot to include these earlier

Hi Gerald

I'm not sure if you read the letter I sent out earlier today or not, but I thought you might enjoy a couple of testimonies from normal everyday people like yourself who have found this business to be the gateway to a better future. Whether you're just starting your career or have worked hard all your life, you will be joining people from all walks of life who have found a better way.

"I am job free at the age of 32! Thank you Jon Bender and Greg Montoya!!! I came from a "good" corporate job making $90,000/year but found myself asking if there was something I could do on a part time basis and match my income. All I had was 10 extra hours a week to work this business and a willingness to learn. By my 18th month my income was over $13,969/month. I now drive a company paid for Mercedes ML 430 and have much more control of my time and income." What a blessing! Paul Svetz

As a former manager for TCI cable for 28 years, and a business owner, I decided that the timing was right to build a business with this product. My wife quickly gave up her teaching position and we both began to work the business. Within three months we were making $8,000 per month and within ten months we were making $19,000 per month". Cadle & Elicia McCeachen

http://www.FreedomIn4Steps.com/lmccleary

Please contact me right away to schedule your confidential 10-15 minute phone interview.

Linda McCleary

(888) 624-2469 (Business Info & Voicemail)

[Pyrts]

Third decade? Mmmmmkayy... then it's probably Amway.

[Abdul Alhazred]

DrMatt nails it down (http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=326091#326091).

[Cactus Wren]

Just to jump back onto the derail for a moment, here's Fred Clark of Slacktivist (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2006/03/filtered_camels.html) talking about his own visit to Jerusalem:

Our official tour guide was a little bald man named Tony. He looked like an Armenian version of Danny DeVito. Standing outside the Lion's Gate to the Old City, I asked him about another famous gate in Jerusalem -- one I'd heard about my whole life growing up in evangelical Christianity. Now that I was there, I wanted to see it for myself.

"Where's the 'Eye of the Needle' gate?" I asked.

[ ... ]

Tony laughed. "Always, always Americans are asking to see this Eye of the Needle gate. There is no such gate. I do not know where this idea comes from."

But Clark has an interesting supposition as to why this legend remains so popular:

Where does this idea come from? Like most urban legends, it's an appealing, colorful story. But it is a bit strange that such a story should become so prominent among people who are so devotedly committed to a "literal" reading of the Bible. A literal reading here seems too disturbing -- an actual camel could never pass through the actual eye of an actual needle -- so the legend provides some comfort.

The key I think is the end of the story, after everything is taken off the camel's back and it is made to crawl through the legendary narrow gate. Then everything is put back on the camel.

[sphenisc]

Sorry, I'm having a problem following your logic here. Yes, the way you explain it, it sounds reasonable, perhaps -- Jesus makes a statement, then explains that it would be difficult, and then gives an instruction for how to deal with the difficultly.

The problem is, the verses happen in the exact opposite order. You've actually had to reverse the order in order to make your argument.


What I actually said was:


I think it was pretty obvious I was referring to 19:24;19:23 states that it would be very difficult, and 19:21 being a specific instruction provides a method for dealing with the difficulty.


I have simply referred to the verses in reverse order, I've made no statement about the order in which the events occurred - this is an inference you've made which is not in my comment.

If you find that too difficult then let me rephrase it.


Verse 19:21 is a specific instruction which provides a method for dealing with a difficulty.Verse 19:23 states that it is a difficulty. I think it was pretty obvious that the hyperbole I was referring to occurred in verse 19:24.



A hint -- when the only way to make your argument seem reasonable is to reverse the entire order of the verses being discussed, it is a fairly reliable indication that your argument may have some holes in it.


I think that I've shown there are other ways to make my argument seem reasonable - therefore your statement doesn't apply.



What actually happens is that Jesus first makes a statement of (what is according to him) fact -- that you should give up your wealth, and follow him.



Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.


The verse contains direct speech using the second person singular. You fail, when converting it to indirect speech, to change it to the third person singular. Perhaps the lack of quotation marks confused you? Yet you managed it for the first-to-third person conversion, curious.
[What we need now is a good grammar dictator. :)]
I think this has a substantial effect on the meaning of the verse.


He then reinforces this by stating that a rich man (ie. a man who has not done what he just instructed people to do) will not enter heaven.



Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.


No, he doesn't. "hardly" =/= "will not"


Were this "hyperbole", that would mean that Christ was saying, "Hey, yeah, rich people can get into heaven, too...its just more difficult for them". He'd be exaggerating in order to make a point.


Yes, that's what it would mean - though I'd suggest that changing "just" to "much" would be closer in meaning to "hardly enter".


But it seems pretty obvious to me (regardless of my personal beliefs in this regard) that Christ meant exactly what he said here -- that to follow him meant to give up your earthly possessions.


Here's what he said again


Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.


That " :and" links two distinct ideas, they are separate and there is no suggestion of an equivalence between them.


Refusal to give up earthly possessions meant you were not following him; and not following him meant you could not get into heaven.


Probably the implied meaning but not stated in the verse. P => Q, tells you nothing about the implications of ~P.

I take the phrase "a camel to go through the eye of a needle" to be a metaphorical expression of impossibility. I also take the fact that Jesus' offers a potential solution to indicate that he, Jesus, regards it as a 'real' solution - i.e. one that it is potentially possible to achieve, though highly unlikely. I think this is implied by "hardly enter".
I conclude that when Jesus says that an impossible thing is easier than a possible one, he is speaking hyperbolically.

Of course, what is regarded as "impossible" may be debated, see verse 26.