bacht

I'm sorry but this is too simplistic. How many ordinary people can actually "take up their cross" and emulate Jesus completely? For that matter, how many ordinary Jews could be a complete servant of God like Elijah or Moses?

There is always a tension between the rigorous minority and the looser majority. This is how social organizations work. This is the trade off we make when a small group gets expanded. "Quantity versus quality" if you like.

Hypocrisy, dishonesty, greed, cruelty - these things don't go away, regardless of the cultural trappings that we live through. We can thank the Enlightenment for this fallacy, that humans can be perfected and "cured" of their vices.

Joan of Bark

No, but I'm commenting on statements from the Bible and whether Christians follow them.

On the issues of wealth and pacifism, they're perfectly accurate generalizations.

You're referring to governments? Agreed. But I'm talking about individuals, specifically Christians, who still make up a majority of western populations.

All of them. If they claim to be followers of Jesus, they're almost all hypocrites.

Because I see very few positive aspects. Besides, this thread is about Jesus' teachings regarding individuals' wealth.

And should be pointed out whenever and wherever is occurs. You can't dismiss hypocrisy in one group just because others are the same way.

I'm not arguing that some Christians are not "true believers". Only that they don't practice what they preach.

And thank the Enlightenment for that ...

I fail to see what this has to do with my prior posts. I'm claiming that Christians as individuals do not follow the teachings of Jesus.

Joan of Bark

A convenient excuse for anyone who doesn't want to make a sacrifice. Why don't Christians give away their disposable income to help those less fortunate? Can they really not survive without that new SUV?


You're off topic. I'm talking about ordinary Christians saying one thing and doing something else wrt wealth ... and then refusing to acknowledge their own shortcomings.

stephan huller

Joan of Fark

You realize that you are acting like the misguided evangelists who think that a given reference in 'prophesy' literally 'foretold' 9-11 or the AIDS epidemic or that a given reference to 'locusts' was a vision of helicopters and modern weapons of war.

Before we can criticize Christianity, we have to understand their texts and their tradition. I am not sure that Christians in the West are the best guides to understand their scriptures. If you want to take their word for what a given passage means and then turn that around into an insult or some 'proof' that Christians are this or that - that's your business.

I am not sure any one understands the gospel any more because - at least according to the earliest Alexandrian exegetes - there was a deeper meaning found in the underlying context of how stories related to each other and the narrative as a whole.

I will give the gospel the benefit of the doubt that it might not have been as stupid as people like you claim. That doesn't mean that I 'believe' it. How can I believe or disbelieve something I don't understand? Again, with arguments like that you are just demonstrating that you are just advancing an inverted form of Christianity - i.e. accepting their paradigm, only turning it inside out.

There has to be something substantial to the tradition to attract smart people like Ammonius, Clement, Origen, Dionysius etc. There had to have been some complexity, some mystic truths - some overarching 'merit' to have been so popular with SMART PEOPLE. The ancient world had a great number of faiths to attach themselves. To think otherwise is to demonstrate a barbarism beyond the most vulgar of Christians.

Doug Shaver

They possibly could be if they agreed among themselves on how their scriptures should be understood, but they don't. And that's no wonder, since the scriptures are inconsistent. Whenever one Christian points to one passage and declares, "It says here we must do X," another can point to another and declare, "No, it says here we don't have to do X."

We who reject scripture's authority have no business adjudicating disputes among those who accept it.

mountainman

The editor of The Golden Chain of Platonic Succession Website,
Phil Norfleet examines the sources for Ammonias and writes....


Which was the SMARTER Ammonias?


Either that or plain and simple pious forgery by Eusebius.

bacht

Some do. My grandmother married two preachers (she was widowed the first time). They had nothing, yet she was one of the happiest most generous people I've ever known.

If you're hunting for hypocrisy you'll have a full-time job for life.

If you want to talk about the purity of early Christians you have to include the belief that the end of the world was imminent. These people could afford to leave behind their normal responsibilities because for them the New Age was near.

You sound like an idealist Joan, which means you face a future of frustration. In the real world people are imperfect, undisciplined, distracted, ignorant... Building a "big tent" organization like the RCC means including the whole spectrum of human conditions, from emperors to slaves.

As for modern Christians, much of their traditional social work has been taken over by the secular state. We have universal taxation and elaborate bureaucracies which have all but eliminated the role that the churches used to fill. Missionary work goes on but there aren't many people left in the world who haven't heard about Jesus.

And I question your assessment of the percentage of practicising Christians left in the West. We've been drifting into a post-religious secular outlook. Typically religion is used now mostly as a moral code, which like all such things are honoured more in the breach.

Joan of Bark

Oooooo, how witty!


Huh? No, I don't realize that at all. There's no prophecy involved. According to Christians the Gospels are an accurate rendering of the words of Jesus. I don't believe that, but that's what Christians claim, so let's start there for the sake of argument.

Jesus renounces wealth and tells his followers not to build up treasures on earth. Modern Christians overwhelmingly want and enjoy wealth (a few exceptions hardly nullifies the generalization). Therefore they are hypocrites. I have far more respect for someone who accumulates wealth (and any western middle-class person is wealthy by world standards) while admitting that they don't follow the gospels. All I'm asking for is a little consistency. I'm tired of Christians lording it over the world with claims of piety, using Jesus as a blunt instrument, while they refuse to acknowledge any of His teachings that they don't like. They're cherry-picking His words to fit their personal lifestyles.

Agreed.

Christians claim to follow the teachings of Jesus as laid down in the Gospels. Then they go and do something completely at odds with those teachings and expect to get the respect of everybody because they've waved the name Jesus around. Whether they understand the true meaning of His teachings or not is completely irrelevant to my point here! If they claim to follow Him, but don't, they they're hypocrites, pure and simple.

1) Even smart people make mistakes.
2) You're still missing my point in this thread. See my comment above.

Joan of Bark

Good for them. They're not hypocrites, but they are a tiny minority.

It sounds like you're admitting something that many on this board, including me, agree with; that is, that Jesus was a failed prophet. Since the vast majority of modern Christians don't believe that, it's an irrelevant point in this discussion.

Nonsense, I'm a realist. We're all hypocrites to some degree. What annoys me is how Christians refuse to admit that their constant desire to acquire wealth is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus. I'm just asking for a little honesty from snooty, chest-thumping, nose-in-the-air Christians.

What??? You've never heard of charitable NGO's? Doctor's Without Borders? Amnesty International? The Make-a-Wish foundation? The local food bank?

Who said anything about practising? For the purposes of this thread I've defined a Christian as someone who claims to follow the teachings of Jesus. I believe that is a definition most self-proclaimed Christians would agree with.

stephan huller

Yes according to know-nothing American evangelicals and the motley assortment of riff raff that they managed to convert around the world. Like I said, why not read Clement, Origen or Ephrem for that matter and tell me that everything is that straightforward. It's not.

Example 1 - Ephrem said that Jesus died at the 'last supper' died and began the descent to hell to redeem the dead.

Example 2 - Aphrahat says that Jesus not only passed through the crowd that was trying to push him off a cliff, but actual flew above them.

Example 3 - this narrative where Clement implies that the Zacchaeus narrative 'concludes' Mark 10.17 - 31.

I don't care what know-nothing American evangelicals think or believe about anything. These people are a disgrace to anything they associate themselves with. This has nothing to do with real Christianity. What they represent is a modern heresy plain and simple which distracts from a two thousand year old (dying) religion. I take interest in things said by Greek Orthodox, Coptic, Syrian Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox - even Roman Catholics (although they typically have no interest in Biblical exegesis - sort of remind me of most reform Jews) and especially old books and witnesses. As I said it's not as straightforward as you make it.