Originally posted by @fmfI don't think it's political.
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Is fhis statement political?
Rich men have more options for debauchery because of money. Hookers, drugs, greed, gambling, etc.
Plus, they may be of the opinion that they don't 'need' God in their life.
One of the more common interpretations is that it was a specific address to a man who said he had otherwise followed all the other commandments and was looking for what to do next. The rich man then goes away because he was unwilling to go to this extreme.
Of course, riches can be a pitfall, but what is the real pitfall about riches is the love of riches.
This isn't actually a call for absolutely everyone to take a vow of poverty and be a liberation theologian revolutionary.
Originally posted by @philokaliaWhy did Jesus suggest something to the man that you describe the man perceiving to be "extreme"? Do you think it was "extreme"?
One of the more common interpretations is that it was a specific address to a man who said he had otherwise followed all the other commandments and was looking for what to do next. The rich man then goes away because he was unwilling to go to this extreme.
Originally posted by @chaney3I did get your point. That's why I typed "etc."
This is one of your dumbest replies.
I said debauchery, and listed some examples.
Not sure why you chose to ignore my point, which is a valid one, and instead act like an idiot.
So you think this Bible verse is about "debauchery"? Just to be clear.
Originally posted by @philokaliaSo one can believe in Christ, believe in the resurrection etc., and follow all the commandments of Jesus, but still not get to "heaven" because of "love of riches", is that your stance?
Of course, riches can be a pitfall, but what is the real pitfall about riches is the love of riches.
Originally posted by @fmfThat doesn't sound right at all.
So one can believe in Christ, believe in the resurrection etc., and follow all the commandments of Jesus, but still not get to "heaven" because of "love of riches", is that your stance?
Sinners are accepted into Heaven if they repent of their sins. They should also work hard to minimize their sins and overcome them, of course, as this is sincere repentance.
But no, it's not like the 21 year old kid who dies in a motorcycle accident that never fully overcame his lustful thoughts but is a practicing Christian is this situation where he is immediately sent to hell, lol.
So why would it be that a wealthy person who may have bee a bit too greedy here & there, but otherwise loves God and does the right things, would be sent to hell because he was just a bit too attached to his wealth in some ways?
But yeah, IDK. You can argue about this from some other perspectives but God is merciful.
Originally posted by @fmfBecause Christ is God, and knew the man's heart, and knew what his largest vice was and knew what he was capable of, he made that exact suggestion, and perhaps that young fellah reformed his life in a great number of ways afterwards and there were good results.
Why did Jesus suggest something to the man that you describe the man perceiving to be "extreme"? Do you think it was "extreme"?
Regardless, it has been an important part of our Gospels, for good reason.
... Is it extreme to take on a total vow of poverty and give up all of your possessions? Yes. I know I am not fit to do that now, and if I went to the Bishop sand said, "Your Eminence, I want to do all of this RIGHT NOW," he would smile, scratch his beard, calm me down, and explain to me slowly why that is probably a bad idea, but if I am actually called in that way, I ought to follow this path and sustain these deeds over some time, and then I can take such a vow.
Originally posted by @fmfNo !! This is the crux!!
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Is fhis statement political?
2 edits
Originally posted by @philokaliaBut the possibility of not getting to heaven is what the verse is about, no? Your interpretation of it is that, if one is "just a bit too attached to one's wealth in some ways", then they will still get to heaven, is that right? Is that what the verse means to you?
So why would it be that a wealthy person who may have bee a bit too greedy here & there, but otherwise loves God and does the right things, would be sent to hell because he was just a bit too attached to his wealth in some ways?
Originally posted by @fmfAre you suggesting that God does not forgive sinners?
But the possibility of not getting to heaven is what the verse is about, no? Your interpretation of it is that, if one is "just a bit too attached to one's wealth in some ways", then they will still get to heaven, is that right? Is that what the verse means to you?
Are you suggesting that God did not come to die for our sins, so that we could be forgiven through repentance?
Because it sounds an awful lot like you are saying that the proper interpretation of the Bible is one in which there can be no circumstances for failing to meet perfection, and that there is some fundamental necessity to die in a total state of grace, like a monk or a nun who took vows of poverty and was given last rites & unctions on their death bed, because... there's no forgiveness to a man who died with some small amount of greed & avarice remaining in his heart.
... And since you are an atheist, we know that this is a position of convenience meant to exaggerate Christian concepts to make them sound absurd and uncompromisingly legalistic to an impossible standard.