Burl

Asked and answered.

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

I agree Burl - it would seem that most people do apply some sort of pragmatism to their charity based on any number of factors, which do include factors such as emotion, weather, physical condition and perhaps other factors outside of their control.  Apart from making pragmatic choices about their charity, some could also randomly vary their response for what appears no reason, but I suspect there is always a reason to why we think like we do, it just might not be obvious to others or even to ourselves sometimes.

Would you also agree that factors such as religious beliefs, values, ones own understanding and interpretation of Christian scriptures, as well as other personal beliefs can also be involved in this pragmatism and impact how one chooses to express or limit their charity?

Rarely.  I did know one paranoid schizophrenic who put all his money in one pocket and would blindly give to whatever.  He thought that his giving was controlled by God.   Got himself arrested when he could not pay for his groceries and knelt down in prayer at the checkout line.

Mostly people are naturally selfish and find excuses to make themselves feel less guilty.

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

To all and sundry who are reading:  please disregard my personal experience that MANY Christians use Jesus' words as a reason for not doing more to alleviate poverty and suffering, and simply consider that SOME Christians do so.  Clearly this is not a figment of my imagination over here in Australia and remarkably, as had been briefly referenced, people in other countries (even places such as Catholic Churches in Cincinnati) have also experienced Christians interpreting these words of Jesus' as a reason for not doing more to alleviate poverty and misery.

But in the interests of generating a constructive discussion, let's just go with 'SOME'.  All good?

But much more importantly, let's discuss WHY Christians limit their charity - the reasons why and any logic behind such.  I am interested in how Christians understand Jesus' example and his words about love and their subsequent understanding of contributing charity (in all ways, including financial).

Please don't bother participating if you are simply going to deny that people limit their charity based on any decision-making process (Thormas) - that will really be a waste of time. 

Paul, it’s always a pragmatic choice between self and others that varies by umpteen parameters.  Is the person in a good mood?  Is it raining?  Angry? Tired? Hungry?

Any person will randomly vary their response for no reason at all.  

Another observation on this pericope is that it supports (not proof; only support) the historical validity of John.

The original Jesus Project (and Ehrman) both consider passages that seem antithetical (called the difficult passages in Biblical Studies) as evidence of authenticity.

The logic is if the book is a polemic or was invented, the authors would not include pericopes that did not support their belief in Jesus as the Son of God.  The only reason for including the difficult passages is that they are part of an authentic accounting.

56 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I think the author is probably trying to make a point that Jesus was special, that his impending death/sacrifice was more important than worldly things such as looking after others with what little contribution a single bottle of perfume might make.  The focus is about Jesus going to his death on people's behalf, so I don't think the author is trying to stake a position on how we should consider world poverty.

I can't be certain of any correct or proper interpretation but for me I don't think the author was trying to say limit your charity because you're never going to solve the problem anyway.

Do you make a conscious decision about when you may have to limit your charity, even if it is just to pay the bills or simply meet other necessary requirements?  I expect you do, as do I.  Of course that's not Thormas' experience with anybody, but how about you?

The apostles walk in on Jesus getting a massage and accuse him of hypocrisy.   Jesus responds by explaining his time is short.  The mention of the poor is not a sermon and should not be read as such.

Personally I never leave the house without a few half-dollars, silver dollars and $2 bills and give to anyone who asks.

Paul, what is your personal reading of this text?   You don’t have to agree with your reading.  Just post what you think the author(s) meant in this pericope about the apostles objecting to the anointment of Jesus. 

On 11/13/2019 at 1:05 PM, thormas said:

Oh well, it would have been fun to know.

Pattaya, Thailand

1 hour ago, PaulS 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?

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.

 

What is your ‘line’, Paul?

This line idea sounds much like what Jesus labeled ‘the leaven of the Pharisees’.  

4 hours ago, S.T.Ranger said:

Well, it's a little early to be coming to that conclusion.

If we take the view that Temporal Justification is in view in both James 2 and Romans 4 we clear up many things that confuse so many. Particularly those who are works-based in the "faith" they follow.

 

You say this as though Christ is in everyone and men simply need to come to that realization. The fact is that all men are born separated from GOd and because of this are under condemnation. Not only do we consider that men must receive Christ in order to "know" that they have eternal life, but look at the fact that Abraham was never eternally redeemed during his lifetime. That is where the OP becomes relevant: Temporal Justification is not to be equated with Eternal Redemption which can only be attained by the grace of God when He intervenes in the life of the natural man and enlightens that man to truth (and when I speak of "Man" I am speaking of both male and female):

Romans 3:24 King James Version (KJV)

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

 

Sorry, no. Justification, whether on a temporal or eternal basis, is not something man does in a salvific context. Men can "justify" the deeds and words of other men and their own by other men, but when we are speaking of salvation only God can Justify (see link):

Galatians 3:6-8 King James Version (KJV)

6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

 

Faith is, and always has been, a result of God's intervention in the life of the natural man. He reveals truth to men and they respond to it, first by believing what is revealed then placing faith in that truth. And something Abraham never did in his lifetime was trust that Jesus Christ had died in his stead. If you read Romans 4 you will see why Abraham was "Justified:" because he believed God would give him a son and that all families of the earth would be blessed through the seed, which he did not understand as the Seed:

Galatians 3:14-16 King James Version (KJV)

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

 

If you consult Hebrews 11:13 and Hebrews 39-40 you will find Abraham, and all Old Testament Saints...died not receiving the promises. He received the promise, but we have received the promise as a matter of it being fulfilled. Paul yearns for his nation to receive these promises given them in Romans 9-10.

 

And note v.14: in view is the receiving of the promise of the Spirit, which they did not. Nor did the disciples of Christ until Pentecost:

Acts 1:4-5 King James Version (KJV)

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

 

And I would point out at this point that I am not saying that the Old Testament Saints were not "saved," they were from an eternal perspective. What I am saying is that they were not eternally redeemed, because Christ had not yet died in their stead yet. Their Redemption was postmortem.

 

I would agree with that.

 

Not sure what "inter alia" is supposed to mean, but I will say this: there are two forms of Sanctification taught in Scripture, Progressive and Positional. Progressive Sanctification is the process of being made holy, both by the work of Christ in our lives as well as efforts we pt forth. This sanctification is not salvific, and will not save despite the works men perform.

Positional Sanctification is the process of God Himself setting the sinner apart unto Himself, again through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus:

Hebrews 10:10-14 King James Version (KJV)

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

 

The "perfection" of v.14 refers to completion, not something that is flawless. If you start at the beginning of the chapter you will see he makes the point that the sacrifices of the Law could not "make perfect," or in other words those sacrifices could not bring to completion the goal for which they were offered, which was atonement and remission (forgiveness) of sins. But the Sacrifice of Christ not only sanctifies the sinner once for all, they are made compete in regards to remission of sins...

...for ever.

Again, the Old Testament Saints were justified during their lifetimes, thus securing their eternal destinies, but they were not eternally redeemed by Christ until He actually died. Application of the Atonement prior to the Cross is not supported by Scripture, and is a construct of popular modern preaching and doctrine. Three final verses to consider:

Hebrews 9:12 King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

 

Chapter Ten gives the reason of the truth of this statement. The sacrifices of the Law could never take away sins and thus make the comer thereunto complete (Hebrews 10:1-4).

Hebrews 9:15 King James Version (KJV)

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

 

Christ established the New Covenant based on His death. This redeemed the transgressions the Old Testament Saints died still in debt to. Christ had to die that men might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. He had to die for men to receive all of the promises:

Hebrews 11:39-40 King James Version (KJV)

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

 

God bless.

 

 

 

Theological hair-splitting, and only decipherable by someone who is already well-versed in western theology.

We don’t do polemics here.  Save that for Theologyweb.com.  A friendly conversation will suffice.

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

If he was clear, I think he was mistaken.

No.  You are mistaken.

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

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.

Your incorrect interpretation of sin is a variety of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy, Paul.

Sin is the degree of impurity.  It is the difference between God’s will and personal will.  It can be an action, but can also also intention or empathy or a lack of love.

23 minutes ago, thormas said:

Watched and enjoyed the 1st half although the guy is a little difficult to watch (but I still liked him). I thought they touched on important considerations in modern life like exhaustion and soul sickness and the failure of the new atheism and the search to replace religion, Christianity - with perhaps Christianity.

Was a bit troubled by his love of Augustine and he used terms like grace and the God who sacrifices without exploring those ideas (although that is not the express purpose of the discussion).

Whenever I hear words like grace, incarnation, immanence and divine sacrifice I ask for an explanation of how they see that at work. In their words how do they see God in the world. 

I thought the comments about the failure of the new atheism were spot on as well.  
 

People are naturally intuitive, curious and creative.  Few crave a reductionist, cynical outlook.

Contemporary philosopherJames K.A. Smith in a wide-ranging conversation centering on Christianity.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Love it, do you know the location?

No idea 😆

Namasté

Paul, I am 64 and my only income is a small disability check.  I do what I can.

59 minutes ago, PaulS said:

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.

Just no formula answer for me.  I do try to avoid the charity industry though.

59 minutes ago, PaulS said:

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 just do the best I can.  
 

But tell me more about this line of yours.

26 minutes ago, PaulS said:

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.

It’s an individual matter.  

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

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?

 

Ironic that you should write this on Remembrance Day.

People are flawed, and considerably less divine than Jesus.  Good Christians are always trying to be better, but sanctification is a life-long process.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

I get that but I rarely pay that much for one of his books. But how much are the Great Courses? Will have to try one of them at some point. 

I have gone to a couple of his Adventures in Ideas lectures at UNC. These are lectures in history, religion, art, philosophy, drama, english, etc. Typically they begin on a Friday afternoon and go into the evening with a dinner, finish up about 8pm and then resume at 8am Saturday ending about Noon. I enjoy Ehrman; he is quirky, hard working, a good lecturer, never avoids questions, fun and educational.

I have branched out in the last few years in biblical scholarship (this had never been my first interest, theology and philosophy are) but I have now read very widely and keep discovering new authors. I also attended one by Duke's Stanley Hauerwas (Theology and Ethics), a real character who swore like a truck driver. 

Great Courses is awesome.  It’s a stream on demand channel on the internet now.  I used to listen to them on CD while driving.  Were expensive but cheaper now.

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

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.

No, I don’t think that is ever used as an excuse and I never heard of Christians being dissuaded from charity except those people who hate being accosted by panhandlers.

Did that idea come from that abusive church you were raised in?

What I do see is a lot of Christians full of false pride who are too vain to accept help from others.  Really a shame.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Not sure about modern Christian thought, as his bailiwick is early Christian history and the Bible - so I doubt he delves into theology. I still consider him as one at the top of his game but always read others, most highly recommended by him, as a balance.

Not sure how original his thought is as he seems to be in the mainstream of the best critics - where he excels is his popularization of what the scholars (and a relatively small number of informed laypeople) know.

 

 

Ehrman does a good job of what he does.  Just not interesting enough for me to spend $25.  I went through all his Great Courses a while back and recommend them.  

22 minutes ago, romansh said:

So is fornication outside of marriage a sin according to our assembled experts, and is it Human?

 

Probably.