Vatican Adds 7 More Sins

[H-Town Man]

Who says that the barbarians WEREN'T civilized to begin with?

Maybe some christians can come to the HAIF to civilized some of the members.

Well since "barbarian" is pretty much by definition an uncivilized person, I guess it was all the Romans who named them that. The idea that the Catholic Church was responsible for domesticating the people who sacked Rome was actually taught to me by a secular historian. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to.

Depends on which version you're talking about.

I heard tracking down and reading the original gospels (which the Bible is composed of) is the "in" thing to do.

The original gospels are in the Bible, but the Bible is composed of a lot more than the original gospels. But you read the whole Bible straight through, so you already knew that.

[lockmat]

So it's okay to be rich, as long as you aren't focused on money. Kind of like it's okay to eat six course meals as long as you're not gluttonous. But if you aren't gluttonous, then why would you eat six course meals? And if you aren't focused on money, then why hoard up riches for yourself rather than giving them to those in need?

Sorry, but you're not going to argue this one away.

I'm not trying to be correct just for the sake of 'being correct.' If you could explain to me how you're correct, I'd agree with you.

One cannot show me in the entire passage where it says it's wrong (and I'm not even needing those exact words) to have wealth. What I do see is someone who would not give up his wealth for eternal life/follow Christ, the basis of the passage.

The entire passage needs to be read in its context, not just one verse. The entire time they're talking about how to have eternal life, not whether having wealth is good or bad.

Plus, who sets the standard for what is rich? To someone in America who makes 100k/year, it's 1mil/year. Or to someone in America who makes 20k/year, it's 80k/year. To someone in India, it's someone who makes $5.00/hour. Wealth is relative. God never set a standard for what is wealth and what is poor.

[ricco67]

Well since "barbarian" is pretty much by definition an uncivilized person, I guess it was all the Romans who named them that. The idea that the Catholic Church was responsible for domesticating the people who sacked Rome was actually taught to me by a secular historian. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to.

Well, actually people who are "barbarians" were called by people who didn't live like them. Same thing was done with the American Indians, The Incas, as well as Egypt and Persia (iraq/Iran). It's a pointless argument, but whatever.

The original gospels are in the Bible, but the Bible is composed of a lot more than the original gospels. But you read the whole Bible straight through, so you already knew that.

Quite a number of people don't realize that the Bible is pieced together of different gospels. The gospels that weren't included in the Final version were simply not included in the final draft for whatever reason. I can only imagine the size of the bible if they were included as well. Boy, talk about a rough editing job.

[memebag]

They domesticated the barbarians who invaded Rome and turned them into a civilized people.

Which barbarians weren't "domesticated"? Do you mean Alaric in 410? He lived in a house. He was also employed by Rome as a soldier.

Or do you mean Geiseric in 455? He lived in a house, too.

But the reason "it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" is not because being rich is wrong, it's because people who are wealthy have a harder time seeing they have a need for Christ/salvation.

Then why didn't Jesus just say that? Why did he say "one who is rich" when he meant "one who has a hard time seeing he has a need for salvation"?

I don't see how you can read anything in that passage but Jesus calling his followers to give up their wealth in order to follow him. In fact, trying to twist the meaning so you can keep your wealth seems to indicate the difficulty you describe rich folk have entering the kingdom.

[H-Town Man]

Well, actually people who are "barbarians" were called by people who didn't live like them. Same thing was done with the American Indians, The Incas, as well as Egypt and Persia (iraq/Iran). It's a pointless argument, but whatever.

I can't answer for all those, but in the case of the barbarians who invaded Rome, it meant people who were lawless.

Quite a number of people don't realize that the Bible is pieced together of different gospels. The gospels that weren't included in the Final version were simply not included in the final draft for whatever reason. I can only imagine the size of the bible if they were included as well. Boy, talk about a rough editing job.

The Bible is not "pieced together of different gospels." The Bible contains four gospels, in addition to many other books that are not gospels. Do you know what a gospel is? The four books contained in the Bible all date from the first century. The other so-called gospels that aren't included were written 150-200 years later, by anti-Christian sects who were trying to falsify Christianity. There was nothing "rough" about the editing.

Which barbarians weren't "domesticated"? Do you mean Alaric in 410? He lived in a house. He was also employed by Rome as a soldier.

Or do you mean Geiseric in 455? He lived in a house, too.

Domesticate in the sense of taming. Teaching such ideas as marriage, chastity, and charity. Also obedience to a higher spiritual law above merely physical indulgence. Some of the peoples who invaded Rome perhaps already had these ideas to varying degrees, but most did not.

[ricco67]

The Bible is not explicit or even implicit? There's nothing morally wrong with being filthy rich?

"Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:23-4

Are we reading the same Bible?

Then why didn't Jesus just say that? Why did he say "one who is rich" when he meant "one who has a hard time seeing he has a need for salvation"?

I don't see how you can read anything in that passage but Jesus calling his followers to give up their wealth in order to follow him. In fact, trying to twist the meaning so you can keep your wealth seems to indicate the difficulty you describe rich folk have entering the kingdom.

To me, the passage alludes to the fact that a man who is wealthy need to also experience charity, for without charity it would be difficult for him to enter heaven?

Man. St. Peter is the ultimate door keeper, eh? I guess he just won't take a fifty to get past the velvet rope.

I don't have my bible at all anymore, but what are the passages before and after?

[TheNiche]

And if you aren't focused on money, then why hoard up riches for yourself rather than giving them to those in need?

Unfortunately, the Bible pre-dates Adam Smith. How does one create personal wealth if not by first creating things that people value, and in so doing raising people up out of poverty? The only alternative is theft, but that is covered by a commandment, which I'd think would trump a deadly sin.

If the new #7 were to be taken at face value, then I'd think that creating wealth would be the holiest endeavor possible. The Catholic Church ought to give serious consideration to the sainthood of entrepreneurs. ...and perhaps a holy war on socialists and Democrats.

[H-Town Man]

I'm not trying to be correct just for the sake of 'being correct.' If you could explain to me how you're correct, I'd agree with you.

One cannot show me in the entire passage where it says it's wrong (and I'm not even needing those exact words) to have wealth. What I do see is someone who would not give up his wealth for eternal life/follow Christ, the basis of the passage.

The entire passage needs to be read in its context, not just one verse. The entire time they're talking about how to have eternal life, not whether having wealth is good or bad.

Okay, let's read the passage. None of what you have elaborated the rich man is written there. The only details it gives about him are that he is a "young man," and that he "had many possessions." That's it. And Jesus's statements are quite general, and there is nothing to suggest that he only means certain rich people (with all the caveats you have added), and not all rich people.

You might want to heed that quote you put up about not adding anything to the Bible.

No, it does not explicitly say it's wrong to have wealth, but it does say "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor." Seems pretty clear.

Unfortunately, the Bible pre-dates Adam Smith. How does one create personal wealth if not by first creating things that people value, and in so doing raising people up out of poverty? The only alternative is theft, but that is covered by a commandment, which I'd think would trump a deadly sin.

If the new #7 were to be taken at face value, then I'd think that creating wealth would be the holiest endeavor possible. The Catholic Church ought to give serious consideration to the sainthood of entrepreneurs. ...and perhaps a holy war on socialists and Democrats.

Where does the Bible say that one should create personal wealth?

What it does say is that if one has personal wealth, he should share it. I don't see where Adam Smith enters in.

[Orikal]

God never set a standard for what is wealth and what is poor.

This is a prime example of what I find to be Christianity's (one of many) death knells, and why I could never, ever believe a supreme being had anything to do with the bible.

Wouldn't the most powerful force in existence, the all-knowing, all-seeing, wise-beyond-measure creator of everything that is, at the very least, be specific in its own book? Not just about money, but about any number of issues.

Just as someone mentioned earlier, these new "sins" are essentially just good judgement calls, as are the current "sins", as are the 10 Commandments. Wouldn't god almighty give us something real to work with, that would actually make our life better, 2,000 years ago? Why didn't it advise of germs/viruses, and inform how to make more potent medicines? I mean sure, Jesus is purported to have spontaneously healed, by why didn't he pass on applicable wisdom from god? "Teach a man to fish..." Why didn't it advise of farming techniques to increase crop yield? Why didn't it give any number of technological applications to actually help mankind, other than to say, "You are sinners, bow to me and be clean. But oh yeah, you're going to immediately sin thereafter, so you have to bow again."

Then there's the whole issue of allegory in the bible, versus literal interpretation. Vast portions of the book are understood to be allegorical/poetic in nature, so why take any of the book at face value? We've seen the devastating results of literal inepretations of the bible. If this is the word of god, why would follwing its words to the "T" create anything other than harmony?

I'm not getting my point across quite as concisely as I would like, but the drift is there.

[ricco67]

I think its more along the lines of "He can share his wealth, IF HE WANTS, but don't expect a free pass into heaven."

[lockmat]

Then why didn't Jesus just say that? Why did he say "one who is rich" when he meant "one who has a hard time seeing he has a need for salvation"?

I don't see how you can read anything in that passage but Jesus calling his followers to give up their wealth in order to follow him. In fact, trying to twist the meaning so you can keep your wealth seems to indicate the difficulty you describe rich folk have entering the kingdom.

We need establish some things first. The Bible is about redemption. God redeeming a fallen human race. And it's about Christ, who came to do that.

It's not just to make people moral. It explains how to live like God wants us to because humans are fallen/have sin.

Take that, and then try to apply that to everything we read in the Bible, including this passage. It's focus is not on wealth, that's just the 'byproduct' for a lack of a better word. It's focus is on a rich man being redeemed to God, the question and purpose of the passage.

He was not sad because he was sinning b/c of wealth. He was sad because in this instance (his pridefull possesions) he was not willing to give it up for eternal life. It's not that anyone who gives up all their money gets eternal life. Anyone who gives up their life for Christ gets it. We don't need to gain wealth and then give it up for eternal life. Then the poor would have no chance b/c they have no wealth to give away.

After our famous "eye of the needle" verse, the story continues...

The disciples are shocked b/c they think, "well then nobody can have eternal life." Jesus responds that with God all things are possible. The 12 then go on to say that they left everything they had (their life) to follow him. Jesus responds with this...

"I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life."

Must we give up our family, home for Christ? If need be, because he's worth it. But at the same time, he's not commanding that everyone do it.

His point is that nothing in this life compares to following him.

I

[lockmat]

This is a prime example of what I find to be Christianity's (one of many) death knells, and why I could never, ever believe a supreme being had anything to do with the bible.

Wouldn't the most powerful force in existence, the all-knowing, all-seeing, wise-beyond-measure creator of everything that is, at the very least, be specific in its own book? Not just about money, but about any number of issues.

Just as someone mentioned earlier, these new "sins" are essentially just good judgement calls, as are the current "sins", as are the 10 Commandments. Wouldn't god almighty give us something real to work with, that would actually make our life better, 2,000 years ago? Why didn't it advise of germs/viruses, and inform how to make more potent medicines? I mean sure, Jesus is purported to have spontaneously healed, by why didn't he pass on applicable wisdom from god? "Teach a man to fish..." Why didn't it advise of farming techniques to increase crop yield? Why didn't it give any number of technological applications to actually help mankind, other than to say, "You are sinners, bow to me and be clean. But oh yeah, you're going to immediately sin thereafter, so you have to bow again."

Then there's the whole issue of allegory in the bible, versus literal interpretation. Vast portions of the book are understood to be allegorical/poetic in nature, so why take any of the book at face value? We've seen the devastating results of literal inepretations of the bible. If this is the word of god, why would follwing its words to the "T" create anything other than harmony?

I'm not getting my point across quite as concisely as I would like, but the drift is there.

I understand your point. But remember, if it were not for sin, man would live forever. Sin brought death into the world.

The point of the Bible is not to have a wonderful life on this earth. That's what Olsteen and others teach.

The point of the Bible is to redeem man back to God. Part of the life of a Christian is looking forward to when death comes or Christ comes back, and then there will be no sin. Life is, "just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away." (James 4:14). A Christians life is not to be fixed on the 'health, wealth and prosperity' many 'preachers' teach these days. It's supposed to be fixed on what is eternal; Christ, heaven, doing things that have eternal value.

Plus, when one becomes a Christian, the Bible says they receive the holy spirit, which through faith and prayer could allow a Christian to live sinless. But because we as humans rely on ourself and not on God, we continue to sin. 2 Peter 1:3 says, "His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness." It's our fault for not having the faith to know that his power can do it.

We need to stop shifting the blame on God and look at ourselves. We are the ones who sin. God knows no sin and does not make us sin. James says this about that, "13Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust."

[H-Town Man]

This is a prime example of what I find to be Christianity's (one of many) death knells, and why I could never, ever believe a supreme being had anything to do with the bible.

Wouldn't the most powerful force in existence, the all-knowing, all-seeing, wise-beyond-measure creator of everything that is, at the very least, be specific in its own book? Not just about money, but about any number of issues.

Just as someone mentioned earlier, these new "sins" are essentially just good judgement calls, as are the current "sins", as are the 10 Commandments. Wouldn't god almighty give us something real to work with, that would actually make our life better, 2,000 years ago? Why didn't it advise of germs/viruses, and inform how to make more potent medicines? I mean sure, Jesus is purported to have spontaneously healed, by why didn't he pass on applicable wisdom from god? "Teach a man to fish..." Why didn't it advise of farming techniques to increase crop yield? Why didn't it give any number of technological applications to actually help mankind, other than to say, "You are sinners, bow to me and be clean. But oh yeah, you're going to immediately sin thereafter, so you have to bow again."

Then there's the whole issue of allegory in the bible, versus literal interpretation. Vast portions of the book are understood to be allegorical/poetic in nature, so why take any of the book at face value? We've seen the devastating results of literal inepretations of the bible. If this is the word of god, why would follwing its words to the "T" create anything other than harmony?

I'm not getting my point across quite as concisely as I would like, but the drift is there.

I think the reason why God did not give us practical advice on how to do things like increase crop yield is that such advice would only increase our love of material things, which God is trying to get us away from, because he knows that while material things have their allure, salvation comes only through him.

Your comments sound very much like the Tempter when he sees Jesus fasting in the desert, and Jesus is famished, and he says to him:

"If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become loaves of bread."

In other words, if you are really God, why don't you do things like curing starvation and what not? To which Jesus says in reply:

"It is written, 'One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.'" Matthew 4:3-4

In other words, while things like bread are nice, the real need that people have is spiritual, and this can only be fulfilled through God's word.

The devil likes material things because he knows we have a weakness for them and that they are the best means of pulling our attention away from God. This is one of the most difficult lessons in Christianity to accept: That what we think we need is not what we really need, and that we must have faith that God will fulfill all of our needs (spiritual as well as material) if we devote ourselves to him. No, it is not clear and concrete, because if it were clear and concrete, it wouldn't be a test of faith.

[TheNiche]

Where does the Bible say that one should create personal wealth?

What it does say is that if one has personal wealth, he should share it. I don't see where Adam Smith enters in.

To my knowledge, it doesn't. This is why I said that it was unfortunate to have pre-dated Adam Smith.

Had its original writers had knowledge of modern economics, they'd surely have recognized that an individual's creation of wealth is symptomatic of the elimination of societal poverty and that it is to be encouraged. And although I'd allow for the advice that a wealthy individual might choose to share his wealth, surely the unholiest thing conceivable is that socialists and Democrats would eliminate the incentive for wealth to be created in the first place by engaging in systematic theft.

One way or another, socialists and Democrats would appear to be devil incarnate (or just very ignorant). They must be stopped (or become better educated).

[lockmat]

Okay, let's read the passage. None of what you have elaborated the rich man is written there. The only details it gives about him are that he is a "young man," and that he "had many possessions." That's it. And Jesus's statements are quite general, and there is nothing to suggest that he only means certain rich people (with all the caveats you have added), and not all rich people.

You might want to heed that quote you put up about not adding anything to the Bible.

No, it does not explicitly say it's wrong to have wealth, but it does say "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor." Seems pretty clear.

Not only do we have to understand the Bible in it's immediate context, but in the context of the entire Bible. The Bible does not teach salvation by works. It teaches salvation by grace (unmerrited favor) through faith. "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." - Ephesians 2:8

So if Jesus was saying that eternal life(not to be perfect, as yous stated) was gained simply by doing a good deed, that verse I just mentioned would be contradictory. That's why we understand the passage as meaning that he needed to give up what he esteemed most,all his posessions, AND follow Christ.

[Orikal]

I understand your point. But remember, if it were not for sin, man would live forever. Sin brought death into the world.

I disagree. The death of cells ultimately causes the demise of a human. I'm sure certain types of sin may speed up the process, but sin, in and of itself, is inert. But god created both cells and sin, so....

I think the reason why God did not give us practical advice on how to do things like increase crop yield is that such advice would only increase our love of material things, which God is trying to get us away from, because he knows that while material things have their allure, salvation comes only through him.

In other words, while things like bread are nice, the real need that people have is spiritual, and this can only be fulfilled through God's word.

Again, both these statements are counter intuitive. The real need is food. Without food you can't do much of anything. Increasing crop yield would only serve to make a more robust, healthy society, thereby increasing the number of individuals available to spread the word and worship god. Why make life in the first place if It's going to then tell this creation that they are not supposed to focus on life and, in lockmat's words, "[look] forward to when death comes."

[lockmat]

I disagree. The death of cells ultimately causes the demise of a human. I'm sure certain types of sin may speed up the process, but sin, in and of itself, is inert. But god created both cells and sin, so....

See Genesis Chapter 3.

2The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die." The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!"

God said the punishment for sin/disobedience to him was death. That's what happened.

God did not create sin.

[lockmat]

Again, both these statements are counter intuitive. The real need is food. Without food you can't do much of anything. Increasing crop yield would only serve to make a more robust, healthy society, thereby increasing the number of individuals available to spread the word and worship god. Why make life in the first place if It's going to then tell this creation that they are not supposed to focus on life and, in lockmat's words, "[look] forward to when death comes."

The reason Christians look forward to death is because it's the final stage of reconcilliation. People are then reconciled physically with the creator who created them (redundant, I know). It's not to say people are to kill themselves. Paul struggled with that situation: "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain" Phillipians 1:21 Life was gain b/c he could continue the ministry for Jesus. But dieing was gain b/c he could finally be with his creator/savior again.

The temporal need is food. Eternal need is Jesus Christ. But for a person, who is eternal (everyone), a Christian is going to look forward to eternity, and desire/want things that have eternal value. As a previous verse I mentioned before, life is but a vapor(it's here for a second and then gone). This physical life is nothing compared to eternity.

[Orikal]

God did not create sin.

Then who did? Man? How does that work?

Edit: Oh yeah, we sure do! That's what started this thread! LOL! I wonder what we crazy humans will come up with next...

[lockmat]

Then who did? Man? How does that work?

Edit: Oh yeah, we sure do! That's what started this thread! LOL! I wonder what we crazy humans will come up with next...

I think you're right. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. But it's actually a heavily debated subject. But we do know from various verses that God has no sin, so it's actually impossible for him to have created it.

I might say it's simply disobedience to God; or contradictory behavior/thinking to God's. We see the first recorded sin in Lucifer as he was prideful.

[memebag]

I can't answer for all those, but in the case of the barbarians who invaded Rome, it meant people who were lawless.

No, it meant people who didn't speak Latin. "Bar bar" was how the Romans heard Germanic languages, so they called them "barbarians". The term was used for any non-Roman. The Visigoths and Vandals all had laws.

The Bible is not "pieced together of different gospels." The Bible contains four gospels, in addition to many other books that are not gospels. Do you know what a gospel is? The four books contained in the Bible all date from the first century. The other so-called gospels that aren't included were written 150-200 years later, by anti-Christian sects who were trying to falsify Christianity. There was nothing "rough" about the editing.

Do you have a source for that? I've read that Luke made it in by one vote, and I've never heard of "anti-Christian sects" trying to falsify Christianity by writing spurious gospels.

Domesticate in the sense of taming. Teaching such ideas as marriage, chastity, and charity. Also obedience to a higher spiritual law above merely physical indulgence. Some of the peoples who invaded Rome perhaps already had these ideas to varying degrees, but most did not.

The Visigoths and Vandals had the ideas of marriage, chastity and charity. By the 5th century they were already heavily influenced by Roman culture, but even going back into their Celtic and Scandanavian roots, we see these ideas. Someone has lied to you.

[H-Town Man]

To my knowledge, it doesn't. This is why I said that it was unfortunate to have pre-dated Adam Smith.

Had its original writers had knowledge of modern economics, they'd surely have recognized that an individual's creation of wealth is symptomatic of the elimination of societal poverty and that it is to be encouraged. And although I'd allow for the advice that a wealthy individual might choose to share his wealth, surely the unholiest thing conceivable is that socialists and Democrats would eliminate the incentive for wealth to be created in the first place by engaging in systematic theft.

One way or another, socialists and Democrats would appear to be devil incarnate (or just very ignorant). They must be stopped (or become better educated).

Wealth can eliminate material ills but not spiritual ones (see above post). In fact, it only exacerbates them, tearing people away from God and each other. The Bible is full of teachings and stories that illustrate this fact. It also makes quite clear that people can live happily despite not having wealth.

It's funny that you say socialists are the devil incarnate - from a certain standpoint, Marxism could actually be seen as doing the devil's work because it equates utopia with material well-being. All wrongdoing, according to Marxism, is just a result of deprivation of wealth; distribute wealth equally and we will all be happy. God and spiritual happiness are taken completely out of the equation (Marx once wrote "my philosophy begins with the rejection of God"). Christianity extols charity, but charity can only truly exist if it's voluntary. Forced charity, of the governmental type, really just amounts to materialism.

[H-Town Man]

No, it meant people who didn't speak Latin. "Bar bar" was how the Romans heard Germanic languages, so they called them "barbarians". The term was used for any non-Roman. The Visigoths and Vandals all had laws.

Okay, fair enough. But I think the implication was that the non-Roman peoples were less bound by law, although certain groups may have had laws of a sort. The word "civilized" originally meant "law-abiding."

Do you have a source for that? I've read that Luke made it in by one vote, and I've never heard of "anti-Christian sects" trying to falsify Christianity by writing spurious gospels.

The sects I refer to were the Gnostics. Sorry you never heard of them. For a source, try "The Early Church" by Henry Chadwick."

The Visigoths and Vandals had the ideas of marriage, chastity and charity. By the 5th century they were already heavily influenced by Roman culture, but even going back into their Celtic and Scandanavian roots, we see these ideas. Someone has lied to you.

Lol, someone is not reading what I write. In the very quote you responded to I said "some of the people who invaded Rome may have had these ideas to varying degrees." I don't think anyone would suggest that the invaders of Rome held the ideas of chastity and charity in the some lofty position as they would be held in the Middle Ages, after the Church's influence had taken hold.

[Orikal]

I think you're right. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. But it's actually a heavily debated subject. But we do know from various verses that God has no sin, so it's actually impossible for him to have created it.

I might say it's simply disobedience to God; or contradictory behavior/thinking to God's. We see the first recorded sin in Lucifer as he was prideful.

Yes, I was being facetious. Contradictory behavior towards god's contradictory rules sure is contradictory.

But then again, I was once told by a christian, "You can't apply logic to god's rules; you simply have to have faith."

And to have faith in such contradiction, seems to contradict common sense, much less logic.

[TheNiche]

Wealth can eliminate material ills but not spiritual ones (see above post). In fact, it only exacerbates them, tearing people away from God and each other. The Bible is full of teachings and stories that illustrate this fact. It also makes quite clear that people can live happily despite not having wealth.

It's funny that you say socialists are the devil incarnate - from a certain standpoint, Marxism could actually be seen as doing the devil's work because it equates utopia with material well-being. All wrongdoing, according to Marxism, is just a result of deprivation of wealth; distribute wealth equally and we will all be happy. God and spiritual happiness are taken completely out of the equation (Marx once wrote "my philosophy begins with the rejection of God"). Christianity extols charity, but charity can only truly exist if it's voluntary. Forced charity, of the governmental type, really just amounts to materialism.

I hope it came across that I was being snarky. I was just having sort of an Eric Cartman / Karl Rove moment, trying to rally the followers of a religion against my own personal nemeses. >

[H-Town Man]

Not only do we have to understand the Bible in it's immediate context, but in the context of the entire Bible. The Bible does not teach salvation by works. It teaches salvation by grace (unmerrited favor) through faith. "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." - Ephesians 2:8

So if Jesus was saying that eternal life(not to be perfect, as yous stated) was gained simply by doing a good deed, that verse I just mentioned would be contradictory. That's why we understand the passage as meaning that he needed to give up what he esteemed most,all his posessions, AND follow Christ.

When did I say that Jesus said eternal life was gained simply by doing a good deed? I never said that salvation comes from works, and neither incidentally does the Catholic church.

You seem very confused here. Jesus is saying that it is better to not be wealthy, i.e. if someone wants to try and be morally perfect, they can start by getting rid of their possessions. Of course we both know that no one can ever be morally perfect, but that does not take away the fact that if one were to be perfect, it would involve giving up one's possessions. Because we all fall short of perfection, we need his grace for salvation. But it is still better to not be wealthy, just as it is better to not commit adultery, not steal, and not murder (even though we won't achieve eternal life by merely following these rules).

The verse never states that his possessions are what he "esteemed most." You are trying to read a situation into this passage that isn't there.

Again, both these statements are counter intuitive. The real need is food. Without food you can't do much of anything. Increasing crop yield would only serve to make a more robust, healthy society, thereby increasing the number of individuals available to spread the word and worship god. Why make life in the first place if It's going to then tell this creation that they are not supposed to focus on life and, in lockmat's words, "[look] forward to when death comes."

I never said that people didn't need food. I said it wasn't the chief need, or the "real" need as you say, but that the needs of the spirit, i.e. the word of God, is what people really need. And as I also mentioned, the Bible teaches that if you put the word of God first, he will satisfy your spiritual need and your material need.

"Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again; but whoever drinks the water I shall give will never thirst; the water I shall give will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." John 4:13-14

[H-Town Man]

I hope it came across that I was being snarky. I was just having sort of an Eric Cartman / Karl Rove moment, trying to rally the followers of a religion against my own personal nemeses. >

Alright, I see it now.

I disagree. The death of cells ultimately causes the demise of a human. I'm sure certain types of sin may speed up the process, but sin, in and of itself, is inert. But god created both cells and sin, so....

That's kind of a shortsighted way of looking at it. Sin is what made us mortal; the fact that we die from the death of cells is true as we are now constituted, but who knows what we were like before?

[memebag]

Okay, fair enough. But I think the implication was that the non-Roman peoples were less bound by law, although certain groups may have had laws of a sort. The word "civilized" originally meant "law-abiding."

Then the implication was wrong. The people who invaded Rome (in 410 and 455, the Visigoths and Vandals), were just as bound by law as the Romans.

The sects I refer to were the Gnostics. Sorry you never heard of them. For a source, try "The Early Church" by Henry Chadwick."

I've heard of them. I have a copy of the Nag Hammadi library at home and have read the entire thing. They weren't "anti-Christian", and they didn't write their gospels to "falsify" Christianity. Some of them were in competition with other Christian sects.

Lol, someone is not reading what I write. In the very quote you responded to I said "some of the people who invaded Rome may have had these ideas to varying degrees." I don't think anyone would suggest that the invaders of Rome held the ideas of chastity and charity in the some lofty position as they would be held in the Middle Ages, after the Church's influence had taken hold.

All of the people who invaded Rome had those ideas, though. I suggest that they may have held those ideas to a higher position than Romans did. And the Roman Catholic Church's influence had already taken hold (in the Western Empire) by the 5th century.

[houstonmacbro]

So sin is a man made concept.

[lockmat]

When did I say that Jesus said eternal life was gained simply by doing a good deed? I never said that salvation comes from works, and neither incidentally does the Catholic church.

You seem very confused here. Jesus is saying that it is better to not be wealthy, i.e. if someone wants to try and be morally perfect, they can start by getting rid of their possessions. Of course we both know that no one can ever be morally perfect, but that does not take away the fact that if one were to be perfect, it would involve giving up one's possessions. Because we all fall short of perfection, we need his grace for salvation. But it is still better to not be wealthy, just as it is better to not commit adultery, not steal, and not murder (even though we won't achieve eternal life by merely following these rules).

The verse never states that his possessions are what he "esteemed most." You are trying to read a situation into this passage that isn't there.

I feel for the most part I've said all I can to state my case.

But you know, if one is not wealthy, the sin of coveting is there. And that's one of the explicitly stated ten commandments.

And this is the second time you've said something about 'being perfect' when those words are not stated once. The rich man asks how to attain eternal life, not perfection.

I feel like nobody has read the passage. I would think anyone who reads the entire account can easily see that the subject is eternal life, not wealth. I don't believe one needs to be a Christian to see that. Does anyone who wants to try and be objective here not currently in the conversation want to take the time out to read the entire chapter and/or passage to affirm what the subject is? To me, it's black and white that he asks, What must I do to attain eternal life?

I don't know grammar as well as I wish I did(I don't remember technical terms), but the wealth aspect is secondary to the main subject of eternal life. It's plain as day to someone who'd try to be objective for a moment and look at the passage for what it says.

And H-town man, and anyone else, I hope you're not thinking my tone is of anger or anything. I'm just not as good as someone like niche at being 'tonedeaf(?).'