PaulS

It's not just my experience by the way, Thormas, if you had bothered to take the time to look into it just a little rather than automatically defending. I hope this helps a little in your understanding: “Jesus said, ‘The poor will always be with us.’” Or: "No matter how hard we try, there will still be poor people.” How This Lets Us Off the Hook: "What good is it to help the poor since they’ll always be with us anyway?" https://sojo.net/articles/8-sayings-christians-use-let-ourselves-hook “If I hear one more person take the phrase “The poor you will always have with you” out of context (almost always as an excuse to avoid asking the hard questions about poverty), I may have to scream. I have heard this statement used countless times as Jesus’ prediction of the state of the world. The poor will always and forever be here, so don’t worry about trying to eliminate poverty. It’s clearly God’s will. Jesus said so.” http://www.catholiccincinnati.org/56108/the-poor-you-will-always-have-its-not-a-prediction/ “Biblical texts, especially “the poor will be with you always” are used to justify the inevitability of inequality and to provide religious sanction for the dispossession of the majority for the benefit of the few.” https://kairoscenter.org/understanding-the-poor-will-always-be-with-you/

Nope - I have made it very clear that whilst my experience HAS been some Christians denying charity because of Jesus' words such as "the poor will always be with you", I have acknowledged that that is not other people's experiences. I have no issue with you not agreeing with me and that such is not your experience. Why do you keep wanting to stay stuck on this? As the thread developed I made it clear that I was referring to most people coming to a point where they decide that they have provided enough or what they can. It's a conscious decision that charity to others stops here because they need the money, for whatever reason. You said that doesn't happen. I know you disagree about that. I agreed you disagreed. Why are you stuck on this? I think what is absurd is that you think people don't make a conscious decision as to when they will stop giving to a charity. Everybody I know does. It seems you are getting ahead of the discussion and trying to defend Christianity before we have even gotten to the point that they may decide they don't have to give away everything. You ask about where I get this stuff but I think the question might be better asked of you - who the heck said Christians had to give everything away or give every last cent? You want to shape my discussion before we can even get to the point that Christians actually make a decision about what they will and what they won;t give! As for my argument being false - I haven't even made an argument for how much Christians should give. Talk about defensive & extreme! Again, you keep saying people give without ever deciding when to stop. I find this nonsensical - it is not reality, but you insist it is. Go figure. Why do they give less? Because they make some sort of decision about stopping! C'mon Thormas, this is just a waste of time. I can see how your hang up with my initial statements to get the thread going have caused your defensiveness about Christianity. It doesn't look like this is going to be at all a fruitful discussion. Unrequired defensiveness. Move on please. Get a grip, Thormas, I am not bashing anybody. I said that my experience was what it was in the opening statements, and have then tried to move the discussion in a practical direction concerning people making decisions about how much to contribute to charity. You are simply not being genuine about what is on discussion here. You are defending Christians from a bashing that isn't even happening. Take a breath, maybe settle down with a drink, read the thread properly, and see that I have only used extreme to try to make the point to you that people clearly DO make decisions about when to give or not. I am NOT saying anywhere what people have to, should do, or must give! Move on people - nothing to see here. Sheesh!

If sin is something immoral (e.g homosexuality once upon a time), but that thing later becomes moral, where does the sin go?

I said "And do they stop 'doing' at some point or do they keep on giving until they are broke? Presumably not, so I guess they must draw the line somewhere mustn't they?". You say "No Paul, although, as you have stated, you do think in terms of drawing lines." What from that do you say I am characterizing? That people have a conscious thought about when they will and when they won't give? And you disagree with that? Thormas, I think you must know that you are really trying to be too clever by half by now. I think you know you are overreaching by trying to focus on the words ‘line in the sand’ when I have explained to you that this is a phrase used to express that most people will come to a point in time when they will make a decision concerning how much charity they are willing to provide. You say people don’t think in terms of “I am doing enough” - they simply ‘do’. If that really was the case, why then do most people stop at some point rather than simply give all of their money and all of their possessions away? Burl's on a pension and does what he can - do you really think he does not make a conscious decision to not to do more, to properly protect his own existence? Of course he does (and so he should) He draws a line in the sand at some point and says, enough. And so he should in my opinion. But you deny this simple, logical step (why, I have no idea, other than just for being defensive). Do you really believe that people do not ever consider whether they can’t/shouldn’t/won’t give any more? I know I do, I expect you do, and I expect most other charitable people do come to a point where they say, that'll do. To ignore this and to say you disagree with my characterization is the real straw man here. That is why I think you are letting your defensiveness get in the way of genuine discussion. I have tried to clarify that I am not attacking you or anybody - I am just trying to discuss a topic in a logical, step by step manner, but of course we can't even get past step one because you keep telling me it is my imagination that people consciously decide when to stop giving. We haven’t even gotten to discuss the factors which people may use to make such decisions because up until now you’ve been arguing that people don’t even make a decision when to stop giving - i.e. they have no conscious thought about where to stop, at which point they may draw a line in the sand and say they can’t give anymore. You disingenuously keep using the term 'line' when I have made clear it's a phrase used to simply show people make a conscious decision. Do you truly believe they don't? Just answer me – do you think most people make a conscious decision concerning when they have given enough time or money to charity? If not, what is it that you think that prompts them to stop at some point? (unless you are talking about people who give every single cent to charity and own no material possessions). If we can get a sensible consensus on this single issue, then maybe we can have a sensible discussion about the rest - i.e. the factors that go into these decisions.

And you clearly want to ignore that my explanation for using the term 'line' was that it is a common idiom, or saying, that expresses how we all have a point, somewhere, where we stop giving and look after ourselves. According to you, that doesn't happen in your experience. Apparently you only understand people giving until there is nothing left. Everybody including myself it would seem! Move past your defensiveness Thormas, acknowledge that all of us have limits to what we give, and then discuss why we have those limits. That is the conversation I am trying to have but you want to stonewall by saying that all of the proper Christians you know have no such limits to giving and simply 'do' - whatever the heck that is supposed to mean. Subsequently I gather all your Christian friends must be homeless and live on the streets and own no material possessions whatsoever - lest they otherwise be seen as at some point drawing a line in the sand to their giving. 'Most people' is based on what empirical evidence exactly, or is that your opinion? It seems my opinion is wrong but yours is right. Go figure. And when they give what they can, do they make some sort of assessment or consideration, for stopping their giving at some point, lest they exhaust all sources of giving? Apparently not you say. I would expect this discussion to be based on nothing BUT our experiences, yours included. And I don't disagree that my experience is not the same as ALL others. Similarly, I don't argue that your experience is that people don't use Jesus' words as an excuse, but to say my experience that others don't knowingly stop giving at some point less they give EVERYTHING away, would seem to be a pretty obvious reality. One that in your experience has never existed apparently. Really?

As I have previously made clear, 'the line' is an idiom for making the point that most people have some sort of threshold where they say 'enough'. Unless you are one who gives your entire disability pension away to the poor, I would suggest you have a line, or a point, where you say "enough is enough". Do you not? So I have a line, a point, a budget, where I say I don't want to give any more than a certain amount of money away. My contribution in the community is less rigid and may change from week to week depending on what else is happening in my life. My point is - I don't run myself into the ground with my time contribution and I don't spend more than my budgeted charitable contribution, so I draw a line at some point. Amazingly, apparently others give no such consideration and do ALL they can, so I guess they have no free personal time and no money left for themselves whatsoever eh?

And do they stop 'doing' at some point or do they keep on giving until they are broke? Presumably not, so I guess they must draw the line somewhere mustn't they? I can see why you are being defensive if you think I am accusing, but I have acknowledged that I do draw a line myself. So I think this is a very real discussion, except that you think people make no judgement as to how much they think they can and can't give. You think they just 'do' with no thought for when to stop 'doing'. I do find that hard to believe that you actually believe that. I do do 'some' things and I do draw a line at some point and decide when I don't want to give any more. I don't think that is an unreasonable suggestion of most people and I think if you felt less accused you may be able to discuss the matter more openly. So know that I am not 'accusing' you.

I just can't see "loving one another as I have loved you" means a Jesus who would buy a new TV over giving that money to somebody who is otherwise going to die a miserable death without help.

So it was a question you weren't expecting in the script. Okay, moving on. I have heard the excuse, and more than once. It is also very apparent to me that many Christians do not do ALL that they possibly can (genuine Christians too and not those you conc=conveniently want to label as not real Christians). Many choose to stop at a certain point. I do the same. But that seems insincere to me if such are truly followers of their Christ & Lord, Jesus. The fully human example of what love is. The man who said to love others as he loved them. So you do have a line or a point where you do say "I am doing enough"? It's not just mine and you do actually practice drawing the line at some point like most other people when it comes to how much charity you can and will provide others? If you own a computer you are amongst the majority of wealthy people in the world - i.e. a much greater proportion of the world is poorer than you. I struggle with this picture versus Christians who argue they are doing everything they possibly can, but still go on holiday or buy a new car, or upgrade their TV or some other material spending, when these kids can't even afford a clean glass of water. I simply cannot imagine the Jesus that much of Christianity preaches saying spend your money on material items rather than save these children's lives. If Jesus truly instructed people to love others just as he loved us, then surely we are ignoring his please if we say he means all to us but we draw the line at maintaining our own comfortable lifestyle.

I think I agree with Thormas that sin is nonsense (unless you happen to be religous and then you value the term). Sin as a religous term has always been used to portray a negative view of somebody's actions. It's an antiquated term and I do wish religious people would move past using it and all its connotations, but alas, they don't seem to be able to. Human being's do do things that harm themselves and/or for all sorts of reasons - deliberately, accidentally, because of addictions, etc. This is not 'sin', this is being human, warts and all. There is no 'mark' we are missing other than a mark we imagine for ourselves, which is why we all have different 'marks'! Again, it is nonsensical to pretend that there is a perfect way of being. It's in our heads.

If he was clear, I think he was mistaken.

I think the conundrum with needing to define 'sin' is that judgement is required to determine something a sin in the first place. What exactly IS sexual immorality? A disabled man utilizing the services of an agreeing sex worker to meet his sexual needs he otherwise can't satisfy - is that immoral? Two consenting adults who desire one another sexually without taking the relationship any further, is that an immorality? What about a couple of teenagers experimenting sexually - is that immoral? Is masturbation immoral? Who decides what is a sin and what isn't, what is immoral and what isn't?

Okay. Thanks for sharing.

I'm not asking for a formula, but rather trying to discuss with you and others how you justify/come to the point that you do, where you decide you have done enough. And if it is relevant to you, I am also trying to discuss how that relates to a view of Jesus' unlimited love for others (as we are told by Christianity).

Well, I call it conversation. I was questioning it (see the question mark?) against some stuff that you had said before in another thread. On other thread you had said (words to the effect) that Jesus was fully human and the exemplar of what it it is to be fully human. As I did then, I struggle with that against the limited life experience of Jesus. I thought those remarks tied in with what we are discussing here. But don't address it if you don't want to as it is slightly off topic. I am using the term 'drawing a line' as a common idiom used in the English language to propose that everybody, you included, has a point (physical, decisional, etc.) beyond which one will proceed no further. You have indicated that you have a point somewhere on the scale because you take kids into account etc. So clearly you have a personal point, or line that you draw, to say where something becomes 'too much' to give to others. I think most reasonable people would understand that and have a point/line themselves. No, I'm not assuming that people are not trying to be 'like Jesus' and not loving others, in fact, I am pretty sure that in their mind that is exactly what they are doing. The experience I was speaking to demonstrated to me some ways in which people justify not doing more - i.e. the poor will always be with us, so we can only do our share. What that share is becomes a personal matter but I can easily see it is not 'everything possible' which I find hard to reconcile against a Jesus that some say is/was the epitome of love. It seems at odds to me that such people don't consider a lot of their luxuries in life as less important than helping a starving orphan for instance. Sure, some can't afford to do more, but I suspect that most with an open mind would consider the vast majority of us to be living a life much beyond the bare necessities to survive and could afford, if we chose to, do more/pay more for those less fortunate. Yes, you have already said that. Got it.

You say you do the best you can, but do you really? I know I don't, and that's because I want to maintain a certain quality of life (as I clearly stated in my intro). Do you maintain a higher quality of life than you actually need to when compared to people that have to drink out of the dirt and/or eat insects to survive? If so, I am simply asking why you choose to do that IF you claim to worship Jesus and all he stood for. I am interested in your reasoning - that is why I am asking. Don't feel attacked - you're no orphan on the issue.

So Jesus wasn't fully human because he didn't have the marriage/kids experience and din't understand what that required of a person? His representation of being fully human was only for a single, non-parent? Of course what more one can do is personal, but I'm sure you would agree that by and large, most of us could go without a lot of stuff if we genuinely thought that loving others was the most important thing in our lives to do (or the second most important thing after loving God). Clearly we don't, and so we draw a line in the sand about what we are prepared to do. Anything over and above what is essentially required to survive. I'm guessing Jesus would want a rug and clothes, but do you think he would put a car, a house, an apartment, toys or books ahead of feeding or caring for another that doesn't have the rug or clothes? You have your own line - where that is drawn I don't know, but I'm sure if you think about it, you draw the line somewhere to determine what you will and what you will not do to help others less fortunate. Do you spend any money on luxuries (e.g. wine, candy, comfortable chairs, etc) whilst other people in the world are starving to death? Of course you do (as do I). So clearly we both draw a line somewhere along the way. As Progressive Christians we can comfortably say that Jesus got things wrong, I agree. If Jesus was an apocalyptic believer, he was mistaken. That doesn't mean his ideals weren't worthy or that we can't take inspiration from what we understand of him. But for Christians that believe Jesus was THE Son of God, is THE Messiah, or even people like yourself that claim that Jesus was an example of what it means to be fully human - how do those people justify not being more like Jesus and doing everything they can to help others and love one another as Jesus loved them, apparently. Again, I am not blaming but trying to understand why Christianity says one thing but largely does another when it comes to self sacrifice and caring for the less fortunate in life. My experience (but not yours or Burl's) has been that Christianity justifies the existence of the poor as a reason for not doing everything possible to help them when many can actually do more. My question is why do they do that?

So as an individual and a follower of Jesus, what do you think? Where and why do you draw the line concerning helping others?

I agree that alleviating poverty and suffering doesn't have to be limited to certain groups (as I said in my intro), or that one should feel guilt about not doing enough (I certainly choose to live a certain way over and above others' misery) but Christianity does position itself in a front-line role when it says that Jesus is God's son, the savior of the world, and a role model for our lives - so why don't Christians really want to be more like Jesus and put everything on the line in order to help others? Do they think that Jesus didn't want them to do everything humanely possible to help another and/or do they think that Jesus thought it was a futile exercise and that the poor will always exist? Is there another reason why most comfortable Christians draw a line when it comes to what they are prepared to sacrifice to help another?

Maybe it's an Australian thing then (although I see plenty of discussion about it when I Google). I understand it is up to the individual - but that's my question - why do individuals who choose Jesus as their role model, not do absolutely everything in their power to help those less fortunate? I don't understand how somebody who says they love Jesus and all he stood for and that he is the epitome of human beingness, can then turn around and spend money on material items whilst other people die because they can't afford to feed themselves. Essentially, Christians in the western world live a glorious existence compared to many others in the world, but generally a line gets drawn (considerably pretty early on in my assessment) concerning just 'how much' assistance one is willing to provide. Jesus, as an exemplar for living the best life as some would say, didn't seem to be at all materialistic or worried about his 401 (superannuation as it is called here in Australia) and according to the NT actually instructed others not to worry about money, yet Christian followers in the main just don't seem to be as genuinely carefree and non-materialistic as Jesus. So I am asking, why? Why do most Christians value their own comfort over and above other people's lives, if they truly follow Jesus? Like I said in the intro, most people really could do a lot more, so as Christians, why don't they? Of course this is going to come off as an attack on Christians, but Christianity after all is preaching "love one another". What sort of love means allowing others to significantly suffer whilst another goes on holidays or buys a new car? This is where the only response I have eventually gotten to has been "the poor will always be with you" (and of course the mandatory "we're only human" line).

So do you think it is a shortcoming of good Christians that they don't do enough to alleviate poverty? Should they be doing more (i.e. everything humanly possibly) to be more like Jesus? What Would Jesus Do? That's if they genuinely believe in what Jesus stood for.

My point isn't about charity per se Burl (most people will donate 'something' to charity along the way or even regularly - even non-Christians and most people don't like being accosted by panhandlers) but more about really doing absolutely everything humanly possible to help those who are a lot worse off than ourselves, which is what it seems to me Jesus was more about. As an example, would Jesus be happier with Christians taking cruises and holidays or do you think he would prefer they stop a child starving to death? Would Jesus encourage Christians to buy a brand new car (instead of maintaining an old, reliable one) instead of say donating that money to widows or orphans or prisoners? It's hard for me to imagine the former when reading the NT or discussing Christianity in general, and I have heard other Christians justify their wealth (even moderate wealth) and not doing more by saying 'the poor will always be with you'. I'm astounded you have never experienced "the poor will always be with you" as a reason provided by conservative Christianity for not doing more (if you Google a little, you will see plenty of evidence of such). It was an understanding I experienced in the Baptist Church, the Salvation Army, and the Churches of Christ (Australia). And I read it again in an article the other day which made me think of posting this thread. I understand your little dig about my Christian upbringing, but I don't think my church was any more abusive than any other really (what Church did you grow up in?). Like most Churches, the people who believe in them think they are right and that most others have got the wrong end of the stick, so abuse is really more about misunderstanding and well-intention-ed indoctrination. But back to my main point - Christians very often seem to draw a line under their willingness to sacrifice their own lifestyle to help others. There is definitely a point for most (is there for you?) where a line in the sand gets drawn and it is usually well before their own life is at threat. Why is this so if Christianity is really only about love?

But do you think Christianity in general uses "the poor will always be with you" as an excuse for not doing more? If Christianity truly is about love, why don't so many committed Christians go to further extremes in helping their brothers and sisters who are so much worse off than them? Why hold back from sharing what they have with those who are significantly worse off? That doesn't seem to be the example Jesus set - at least how Christianity tends to portray it anyway.

I think there is a positive to sin which many people miss - without 'sin' we wouldn't learn many lessons in life and we wouldn't value what it's like to live without 'sin'. So cheers to sin, I say!

The words attributed to Jesus in John 12:8 are often provided as a reason for drawing a line above 'acceptable' poverty and for individual Christians to not do everything humanly possible to eradicate it. It's not that I think we should all feel obliged to do everything possible to eradicate poverty, that's ones own choice, but I think as a representation of Jesus' words it is used as a cop-out for not caring enough for the poor as fully as Jesus seems to have preached. Let's be honest, it's an uncomfortable thought for us comfortable westerners (and if you're sitting there using a computer or tablet at present you are more comfortable than the majority of individuals in the world) to think we should lower our living standards down so low just to help lift others up. For example, I'd be pretty confident all of us could do more to alleviate somebody else's poverty if we really wanted to, but most of us draw the line somewhere to suit ourselves. I think that's fair enough, but I also think it flies in the face of what Jesus, the ultimate non-material role model, was actually telling people. What say others?