Bobby Jindal Signs 'Guns-In-Church' Bill Into Law

[Quackers]

How so? You have yet to elaborate on this apparently crucial point.


Ok then; dispute. What is the Christian Socialist interpretation of this passage as you understand it, and in what manner is it incorrect?

How so? I thought this would be obvious?
A camel entering the eye of the needle is impossible, a camel entering a small gate, only open after hours is far more reasonable and possible! In one sense a rich man cannot enter the heaven and in the other it is difficult but not impossible!

To answer your second point the rich man is being urged to give up his wealth and share it amongst other people. Whilst being a very nobel act, in the modern world it would justify a Godly reason to take away the wealth of hardworking people and redistribute it. In other words socialism working in reality.

 

[Traitorfish]

How so? I thought this would be obvious?
A camel entering the eye of the needle is impossible, a camel entering a small gate, only open after hours is far more reasonable and possible! In one sense a rich man cannot enter the heaven and in the other it is difficult but not impossible!

That seems rather hard to swallow, I must say; Jesus has always explicitly endorsed austerity and asceticism in plain language- "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."- but you suggest that he would contradict himself at the last minute? "Give away all your money!" "Really?" "Well, maybe. Just play it by ear." Is that honestly your interpretation of that passage?

To answer your second point the rich man is being urged to give up his wealth and share it amongst other people. Whilst being a very nobel act, in the modern world it would justify a Godly reason to take away the wealth of hardworking people and redistribute it. In other words socialism working in reality.

That doesn't actually answer my question; I asked why you think that this interpretation was incorrect, which you have not actually told me. You have merely told me that you think it is incorrect, and that you do no support the actions it endorses (according to certain interpretations of that interpretation). Presumably, you also object to the activities endorsed by a socialist interpretation of The Communist Manifesto, but that does not necessarily mean that you would assert those ideas to be an incorrect interpretation.

And, remember, I never said that the "socialist" interpretation is or isn't correct, merely that the passage advocates austerity and asceticism. It is upon you to show how the one such an interpretation is necessarily dependent on or related to socialist ideology.

 

[Quackers]

I'm talking solely about this phase, ok? I am not talking about any other part of the bible where he discusses sharing ones wealth. Whatever else Jesus said it is iirelevent, we are discussing one phase.

Anyway I believe that we cannot determine the meaning of the words used, and therefore it is useless to derive any lesson from it.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's not "other parts of the Bible", Quackers, it's the immediate context of the phrase. He wasn't just issuing pointless acontextual quips, who was making a very particular point to particular people in a particular context. Again, here are the three passages, all describing the same event (give or take the inconsistencies which typical of the Gospels) in which the phrase appears:

Spoiler :

16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
18"Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother', and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"
20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"
26Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
27Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?"
28Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"
20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."
21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"
24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
26The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?"
27Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."
28Peter said to him, "We have left everything to follow you!"
29"I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. 31But many who are first will be last, and the last first."

18A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
19"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 20You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'"
21"All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.
22When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
23When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. 24Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
26Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"
27Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."
28Peter said to him, "We have left all we had to follow you!"
29"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 30will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life."

Now, in each of these, Jesus is clearly trying to make a point. He wouldn't have said it if he wasn't, and no-one would have bothered to remember it if it wasn't a point worth remembering, recording and disseminating. You cannot, as you are trying to do, take any one part of the text out of context and then declare it absurd and innately incomprehensible. To do so is intellectual dishonesty of the most pathetic sort.

 

[kosiosko 1]

How so? I thought this would be obvious?
A camel entering the eye of the needle is impossible, a camel entering a small gate, only open after hours is far more reasonable and possible! In one sense a rich man cannot enter the heaven and in the other it is difficult but not impossible!
.

But it doesn't have to be a small gate... jc doesn't say its impossible for a rich man to go to heaven, he said its like a camel going through the eye of a needle/ and with god all things are possible in the same story... you would have him imply that rich people can only get in after hours through the side gate.. now that fits my socialist ideas perfectly

 

[Quackers]

21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

hehe, what an interesting phase. Jesus wants you to give away all of your material possesions on Earth, but only on the promise that you will recieve treasure in heaven. I never trust blokes with long hair anywya

i suspect PS has long hair....

 

[kosiosko 1]

hehe, what an interesting phase. Jesus wants you to give away all of your material possesions on Earth, but only on the promise that you will recieve treasure in heaven. I never trust blokes with long hair anywya

Now thats a good arguement... your right not too, he's far more dangerous than Marx

 

[Traitorfish]

hehe, what an interesting phase. Jesus wants you to give away all of your material possesions on Earth, but only on the promise that you will recieve treasure in heaven. I never trust blokes with long hair anywya

So your response is, in essence "Naw, mate, oi aven't gorra scooby"? Erudite.

 

[Quackers]

So your response is, in essence "Naw, mate, oi aven't gorra scooby"? Erudite.

I am sorry if i cannot add to a comprehensive discussion on Christian theology. It isn't my forte'. One day you will understand that whats writen in the Bible isn't absolute truth and we cannot take it at face value. Untill that day I cannot help you.

 

[Traitorfish]

I am sorry if i cannot add to a comprehensive discussion on Christian theology. It isn't my forte'. One day you will understand that whats writen in the Bible isn't absolute truth and we cannot take it at face value. Untill that day I cannot help you.

I'm not asking you to add to a "comprehensive discussion on Christian theology", I'm asking you to present a cohesive position. Simply refusing to answer any question put to you while simultaneously accusing your opponent of ignorance and naivety, as you are doing, is about as far from that as one could hope to get while still retaining the barest façade of comprehension.

 

[Quackers]

Actually Traitorfish I've been thrown around and abused by your verbal questions - I am black and blue by your vicious fury! If an answer isn't up to your Stratclyde university standards then I cannot help you.

I am at lost that you read my posts and cannot find a "cohesive postion". I feel that I have made myself very clear.

 

[Traitorfish]

You have repeatedly asserted a particular interpretation of the phrase while simultaneously insisting that it is impossible to accurately comprehend the meaning of the phrase, having reached these contradictory conclusions by examining it acontextually. That is not cohesive, it's just stubborn.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

We may also want to look at the account found in the Gospel of the Hebrews (which could possibly be the original Hebrew of Aramaic version of Gospel of Matthew used as as source by the author of the Greek book we know by that name). The bulk of the text is unfortunately lost, but it seems some relevant text survives though Origin's quotations:

It is written in a certain Gospel which is called according to the Hebrews (if at elast any one care to accept it, not as authoritative, but to throw light on the question before us):

The second of the rich men (it saith) said unto him: Master, what good thing can I do and live? He said unto him: O man, fulfil (do) the law and the prophets.

He answered him: I have kept them. He said unto him: Go, sell al that thou ownest, and distribute it unto the poor, and come, follow me. But the rich man began to scratch his head, and it pleased him not. And the Lord said unto him: How sayest though: I have kept the law and the prophets? For it is written in the law: Though shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, and lo, many of thy brethren, sons of Abraham, are clad in filth, dying for hunger, and thine house is full of many good things, and nought at all goeth out of it unto them.

And he turned and said unto Simon his disciple who was sitting by him: Simon, son of Joanna, it is easier for a camel to enter in by a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

This version adds a little more detail, making it clear that it is not the material wealth in and of itself that keeps a rich man from the Kingdom of God but rather his choice to break the Great Commandment by hoarding the wealth from neighbors in need.

 

[kill fire]

You know what the problem with following word for word the teachings of a guy that lived 2000 years ago? They lived 2000 years ago.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This isn't about anyone interpreting this. This is about some Christians, who claim to follow the teachings of Christ, not liking one of the teachings of Christ and making up cop-outs (and here comes the problem) out of thin air, with zero evidence to back it up, so they can still go on their merry greedy ways. This is not about anyone needing to follow any kind of scripture.

It especially becomes hypocritical when many of those "some Christians" regard atheists as being atheist because it would be the "easy way out".

 

[_random_]

We may also want to look at the account found in the Gospel of the Hebrews (which could possibly be the original Hebrew of Aramaic version of Gospel of Matthew used as as source by the author of the Greek book we know by that name). The bulk of the text is unfortunately lost, but it seems some relevant text survives though Origin's quotations:



This version adds a little more detail, making it clear that it is not the material wealth in and of itself that keeps a rich man from the Kingdom of God but rather his choice to break the Great Commandment by hoarding the wealth from neighbors in need.

Helpful as always, Magister.

 

[Plotinus]

I think the meaning of the phrase changes greatly if the "Needle" is a gate.

"Needle" means "needle". The idea that it means "gate" is just a myth, started by people who didn't want to take this saying seriously, and it has no textual basis in anything.

The saying attributed to Jesus is definitely about camels and needles, not gates or anything like that. Now how one interprets it, and how literally one thinks it should be interpreted, is of course another matter, as is the question whether Jesus really said it (although as far as I know there are no particular doubts about the authenticity of the saying itself, although the context in which it appears may be another matter).

I am just disputing the cheap socialist message learnt from this specific phase which I believe should be ignored as it has 2000 years of changes to it (like the rest of the bible).

No, the text of the New Testament as we have it is reliable and ancient. It has not been changed over the past two thousand years.

I agree that the passage in question is not socialist, although it is certainly easier to reconcile with socialism than it is with capitalism. Both capitalism and socialism are post-biblical developments, although both can find justification in the New Testament - I think that it is easier to find justification there for socialism, though, which is why Christianity was such an important influence on early socialism. What makes that "cheap", I don't know.

Incidentally, Jesus probably didn't really have long hair. The portrayal of him with long hair dates back no further than the fourth century.

We may also want to look at the account found in the Gospel of the Hebrews (which could possibly be the original Hebrew of Aramaic version of Gospel of Matthew used as as source by the author of the Greek book we know by that name).

No, it isn't. The Gospel of Matthew was certainly written originally in Greek, statements by Irenaeus to the contrary notwithstanding. Scholars are unsure what relation the fragments of the Gospel of the Hebrews bear to the canonical Gospels.

 

[choxorn]

No, the text of the New Testament as we have it is reliable and ancient. It has not been changed over the past two thousand years.

Yes it has, it's been translated a few times from one language to another. That will inevitably change it, at least a little. Translations aren't perfect.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes it has, it's been translated a few times from one language to another. That will inevitably change it, at least a little. Translations aren't perfect.

No, it hasn't. We have versions of every book of the Bible in the original Aramaic and Koine Greek, respectively. New translations are, and have always been, derived from these originals texts, and not from each other. Why would it be otherwise? The original canonical texts were never lost, and have always been attributed primacy over any and all translations. That's not to say that the text necessarily represents a perfect transcript of the events described, given that the texts where not compiled for several decades after the event (in this case, I believe, Mark, most of the text which it shares with Matthew and Luke being believed to originate there), but that is an altogether different issue.

 

[Ajidica]

I have to acknowledge one thing about this forum, if a discussion goes on long enough it will inevitably be about socialism or religion.