Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BryanS

Vatican Adds 7 More Sins

Recommended Posts

Lust, gluttony, greed and the rest of the seven deadly sins gathered in the 6th century will have to get used to a modern companion. A Vatican official has articulated seven new categories of sin "due to the phenomenon of globalization."

1. "Bioethical" violations such as birth control

2. "Morally dubious" experiments such as stem cell research

3. Drug abuse

4. Polluting the environment

5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor

6. Excessive wealth

7. Creating poverty

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/1...-to-vatican/?hp (read the comments)

Don't agree with #1 or #2... among many others, not listed here...

EDIT: Don't agree with #1 or #2 being on the list... Don't have an issue with birth control or stem cell research...

Edited by BryanS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that finds these hilarious since the Roman Catholic church is the most wealthy institution on the planet and their convert base and much of their member base are those in poverty around the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I the only one that finds these hilarious since the Roman Catholic church is the most wealthy institution on the planet and their convert base and much of their member base are those in poverty around the world?

For all the Roman Catholic Church's faults, can you name me another institution in human history that has done as much good in the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not up to me to prove the worthiness of religion. But it is up to religion to answer to the many horrific things it does around the world (and not just Catholics) in the name of god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lust, gluttony, greed and the rest of the seven deadly sins gathered in the 6th century will have to get used to a modern companion. A Vatican official has articulated seven new categories of sin "due to the phenomenon of globalization."

1. "Bioethical" violations such as birth control

2. "Morally dubious" experiments such as stem cell research

3. Drug abuse

4. Polluting the environment

5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor

6. Excessive wealth

7. Creating poverty

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/1...-to-vatican/?hp (read the comments)

Don't agree with #1 or #2... among many others, not listed here...

I don't particularly agree with the first couple of them, but #6 caught my attention.

There was a clarification by the church on this one that made me feel a bit better by it. Supposedly, this is aimed at people that are "in love" with their own wealth are not responsible with it. To me, this falls under the guise of greed. But the Church (which I prefer to think of myself as a Super Delegate of) feels that if you have enough wealth, it is your responsibility to help others in your community with it, be it helping an individual, or creating something more grand. but whatever.

Edited by ricco67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For all the Roman Catholic Church's faults, can you name me another institution in human history that has done as much good in the world?

No kidding. If it weren't for their tyranny, we wouldn't have America.

But seriously, what good have they done? I'm not asking facetiously, but inquisitively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deuteronomy 4:2 - Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 - See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.

Revelation 22:18-19 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

And yes, the God of the old testament is the same one that's in the new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No kidding. If it weren't for their tyranny, we wouldn't have America.

But seriously, what good have they done? I'm not asking facetiously, but inquisitively.

Are you asking about Catholicism or religion as a whole?

Being a poor defender of the faith (I'm agnostic or apathetic, depending on your point of view), but raised catholic; I find that the Catholic's Church's role in a variety of atrocities in the past totally reprehensible. I'm not simply talking about the inquisition, but also suppressing science in the name of religion to keep their own power. Now, at the same time, the church has "FUNDED" quite a few things that have benefited history in the long run, but for the wrong reasons.

Now as far as religion itself goes, I believe that it gives people some sort of solace that there is something bigger than themselves. A way to give a moral compass in what they do and how they lead their day to day lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No kidding. If it weren't for their tyranny, we wouldn't have America.

How so?

But seriously, what good have they done? I'm not asking facetiously, but inquisitively.

The Roman Catholic Church is reponsible for the existence of countless:

Universities

Hospitals

Primary and secondary schools

Orphanages

Shelters

Soup kitchens

Ministries to poor

Ministries to families

Ministries to the elderly

Additionally, Catholic Relief Services provides assistance to 80 million people in more than 100 countries worldwide and Catholic Charities is the second largest social services provider in the US after the Federal Government.

The Roman Catholic Church has had a lot of warts in its history, and none of its members are perfect. But I stand by my assertion that no other institution has done as much good in the world. If you have one that would top it, I would be very interested, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Roman Catholic Church has had a lot of warts in its history, and none of its members are perfect. But I stand by my assertion that no other institution has done as much good in the world. If you have one that would top it, I would be very interested, of course.

I got a lot of issues with the Catholic church but it should be pointed out that their charities are among the most efficient. The percentage of funds dedicated to fund raising is among the lowest. So if your looking for a spot for your charitable donations that would be one good place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bioethical violation birth control? I guess molesting little boys is an approved alternative method?

"due to the phenomenon of globalization". Oh my, now that things like science and information and other beliefs are more freely available, its gotta be harder to spread our old crap, so let's add some new crap to guilt folks so we don't lose our hold on them.

Edited by webdude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or the church's role in the Rwandan tragedies.

http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafri.../art_10231.html

I don't blame people for making blanket judgments, but I think it's better to judge on an individual basis. One Christian who believes and acts correctly (or any other religion for that matter), can only encourage another to do the right thing, not make them, if they're behaving contradictory to the truth. So while I understand labeling an act upon 'the church,' one still needs to be discerning. Afterall, the Bible does teach of 'wolves in sheeps clothing.' Meaning as you know, that not all who claim to be Christians, truly are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't blame people for making blanket judgments, but I think it's better to judge on an individual basis. One Christian who believes and acts correctly (or any other religion for that matter), can only encourage another to do the right thing, not make them, if they're behaving contradictory to the truth. So while I understand labeling an act upon 'the church,' one still needs to be discerning. Afterall, the Bible does teach of 'wolves in sheeps clothing.' Meaning as you know, that not all who claim to be Christians, truly are.

It's been my observation that many (not all and maybe not even most) people that claim religion and God and Jesus act in ways that utterly astound and baffle me.

It is often the spiritual people that are in touch with themselves and their 'god', that make no dramatic announcements, and just 'DO' that are the 'religious' people that I respect the most.

I cannot tell you how many times I hear "I'm saved ... I'm blessed and highly favored' (etc.) and then you see them off doing very unsaved things or speaking in very unsaved manners.

But whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's been my observation that many (not all and maybe not even most) people that claim religion and God and Jesus act in ways that utterly astound and baffle me.

It is often the spiritual people that are in touch with themselves and their 'god', that make no dramatic announcements, and just 'DO' that are the 'religious' people that I respect the most.

I cannot tell you how many times I hear "I'm saved ... I'm blessed and highly favored' (etc.) and then you see them off doing very unsaved things or speaking in very unsaved manners.

But whatever.

I understand. I see it too. But the Bible doesn't say once saved, sin is nonexistent in their life. Keep that in perspective. And I'm sure you're probably talking about more extreme things, but also remember where we live, many people are 'born into' Christianity. The Bible doesn't teach salvation is passed on by birth. So what you get are a lot of people who claim the religion, maybe go to church once a week/month/year and don't even try to live according to what they 'say' they believe the other days they're not sitting in the pew. See, even people who don't claim Christ can see 'the wolves' sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think this is adding, just a re-confirmation. Does someone religous need to be warned that polluting the environment is a sin? The Vatican could come up with all types of "new" sins that some do not need to be reminded of. Just a reminder that some people need to think for themselves and not to focus on, mainly for political reasons, a few issues. The Bible may not talk about the sport of hunting for the purpose of just leaving an animal for dead, but many including myself still think it is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you asking about Catholicism or religion as a whole?

Being a poor defender of the faith (I'm agnostic or apathetic, depending on your point of view), but raised catholic; I find that the Catholic's Church's role in a variety of atrocities in the past totally reprehensible. I'm not simply talking about the inquisition, but also suppressing science in the name of religion to keep their own power. Now, at the same time, the church has "FUNDED" quite a few things that have benefited history in the long run, but for the wrong reasons.

Now as far as religion itself goes, I believe that it gives people some sort of solace that there is something bigger than themselves. A way to give a moral compass in what they do and how they lead their day to day lives.

So even when the church did something right, it was for the wrong reasons, huh? Just non-stop evil for 2,000 years? Sounds like somebody still resents having to go to Mass as a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. "Bioethical" violations such as birth control

5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor

6. Excessive wealth

7. Creating poverty

I would have to say these four are for sure adding. The Bible is not explict or even implicit on these situations. Jesus helped the poor and even commands it, but at the same time says there will always be poor. It's a fact. There's nothing morally wrong with being poor, just like there's nothing morally wrong with being filthy rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But seriously, what good have they done? I'm not asking facetiously, but inquisitively.

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

Their monasteries and churches were pretty much the source of charity in the middle ages.

They saved and passed down the intellectual works of the ancient world so that they could benefit the modern.

They have, for 2,000 years, maintained an army of people spread throughout the world who are on call 24/7 for any parishioner's need. They counsel marriages, visit the sick, console people in times of grief, and are woken up in the middle of the night to go sit with people in hospitals when there is an emergency. In none of these circumstances to they ask for pay, and sometimes the people they help are strangers who they have never seen before and will never see again. They endure (and have always endured) constant ridicule from the societies they live in without saying a word. They are called priests.

I would have to say these four are for sure adding. The Bible is not explict or even implicit on these situations. Jesus helped the poor and even commands it, but at the same time says there will always be poor. It's a fact. There's nothing morally wrong with being poor, just like there's nothing morally wrong with being filthy rich.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not up to me to prove the worthiness of religion. But it is up to religion to answer to the many horrific things it does around the world (and not just Catholics) in the name of god.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them.... Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'" Matthew 7:15-23

There's your answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So even when the church did something right, it was for the wrong reasons, huh? Just non-stop evil for 2,000 years? Sounds like somebody still resents having to go to Mass as a child.

Not that. I just didn't like people's attitudes after they left church. Even today I get all sorts of hell for not going to a church. Whenever someone calls on my door at religion, I usually say, "No thanks, I'll give at the office" or "I'm waiting to see if I pass the death test."

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

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.

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

The Rich man had a problem with pride and his faith was in his money/posessions. There's nothing inherently wrong with money. Look at a few characters in the old testament. David and Solomon. Among two of the richest men who ever lived, yet they're heralded among Christians and God because of their great faith. That rich man was being tested.

"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?" - Mark 8:34

The rich young man was wondering what he had to do to get into heaven. Jesus told him to keep the commandmens, which he said he did, yet we know nobody is perfect so he way lying. Jesus went along with it anyway and then told him to give away all his posessions and follow him. And this is key: "When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions."

He wasn't willing to give up his 'life' to follow Christ. He would rather have money/posessions than Jesus. The point being that to follow Christ, it costs your life, not so much that being rich is bad.

And consider the verses following those:

25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" 26But Jesus(AJ) looked at them and said, (AK) "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." 27Then Peter said in reply, "See,(AL) we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?" 28Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world,[b](AM) when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me(AN) will also sit on twelve thrones,(AO) judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29(AP) And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Rich man had a problem with pride and his faith was in his money/posessions. There's nothing inherently wrong with money. Look at a few characters in the old testament. David and Solomon. Among two of the richest men who ever lived, yet they're heralded among Christians and God because of their great faith. That rich man was being tested.

"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?" - Mark 8:34

The rich young man was wondering what he had to do to get into heaven. Jesus told him to keep the commandmens, which he said he did, yet we know nobody is perfect so he way lying. Jesus went along with it anyway and then told him to give away all his posessions and follow him. And this is key: "When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions."

He wasn't willing to give up his 'life' to follow Christ. He would rather have money/posessions than Jesus. The point being that to follow Christ, it costs your life, not so much that being rich is bad.

And consider the verses following those:

25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" 26But Jesus(AJ) looked at them and said, (AK) "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." 27Then Peter said in reply, "See,(AL) we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?" 28Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world,[b](AM) when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me(AN) will also sit on twelve thrones,(AO) judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29(AP) And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's important to understand the original context and meaning of words. That's why it's so beneficial to go back to the greek, hebrew and aramaic.

We value original context today, same goes for the Bible or any other writings.

I totally agree, but some people don't believe in context and that's why you have fundamentalists (in all religions) today.

While I don't claim to be a true scholar of the bible (or even a knowledgeable novice, I do call out people who I suspect take the verses out of context.

My favorite story:

At the at of 12 (or so), my parents were concerned that I wasn't being very diligent or enthusiastic at Sunday school and the bible (which I had read cover to cover before I had to), the priest came to me and basically asked my opinion on the Bible and I responded, "Not bad. It had some slow parts in the middle, but the ending wasn't very satisfying." he did the sign of the cross and left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read the verses again. He wasn't saying "this rich man." He just said "one who is rich." Meaning ANYONE who is rich. This verse is difficult to accept for a lot of Christians who want to enjoy their wealth, so they try to find ways of twisting it, but the text is pretty clear and plain.

As for David and Solomon, they also had multiple wives (in Solomon's case, hundreds); does that mean it's okay to have multiple wives? Just because those two guys did something doesn't make it okay.

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. Our mindsets are so temporal and focused on this earth, that when one has a lot of money, it can get them anything they want. So who needs Christ/salvation? What value does he add? It's not impossible, as Christ says in later verses which i pasted, "with God, all things are possible." I don't think in that case Christ was using hyperbole, but the main point was, one must give up their life, what they value most (in this case his money), that is if it gets in the way of following Christ, to attain eternal life. One must "die to self." Just like money is not THE root of ALL evil, "the love of money is a root of all kinds(not every) of evil." (1Tim 6:10)

My favorite story:

At the at of 12 (or so), my parents were concerned that I wasn't being very diligent or enthusiastic at Sunday school and the bible (which I had read cover to cover before I had to), the priest came to me and basically asked my opinion on the Bible and I responded, "Not bad. It had some slow parts in the middle, but the ending wasn't very satisfying." he did the sign of the cross and left.

haha, what? :blink:

Guess he didn't care enough to sit down and do a little explaining?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. Our mindsets are so temporal and focused on this earth, that when one has a lot of money, it can get them anything they want. So who needs Christ/salvation? What value does he add? It's not impossible, as Christ says in later verses which i pasted, "with God, all things are possible." I don't think in that case Christ was using hyperbole, but the main point was, one must give up their life, what they value most (in this case his money), that is if it gets in the way of following Christ, to attain eternal life. One must "die to self." Just like money is not THE root of ALL evil, "the love of money is a root of all kinds(not every) of evil." (1Tim 6:10)

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by H-Town Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by TheNiche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :P 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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :P 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Edited by Orikal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...