Yeah I think we are in agreement with this. I know some very wealthy people who do likewise. I don't know them well enough to know everything about them, and even if I did wouldn't make judgements on their spiritual life, but they appear to fulfill the word of Jesus in that respect. I also agree that JEsus didn't tell everyone to leave their families. Sorry if that was the message I conveyed. Actually as a Christian I am more disappointed when a fellow Christian acts in a way that I believe is against the teaching of Jesus but still does it in the name of Jesus(like Falwell, etc.) Those are also the Christians that get the most publicity, etc. So when I get to discuss issues like this with Christians that I agree with, I'm always encouraged. Thanks, Max. The Falwell types are, of course, entitled to believe how they wish to believe. I just don't have to like it.
I completely agree...they tend to display somewhat less of the love of Christ that I've been fortunate enough to experience. Thank you for the same.
On an individual basis, I might agree. But I do think that it qualifies as more than a struggle to attempt to reconcile the priorities of the US culture with Chrisitianity. I do not think the US would qualify as a nation in keeping with the priorities of JC, and in more than a " we're none of us perfect' context. What I am saying was that this was clearly one of the fundamental teachings of Christ, is in complete contradiction to American piorities, and is rarely if ever addressed with more than the 'we're not perfect' thing. I think we are in agreement on this.
sorry for exposing my ignorance, but two questions: 1) is it true then, according to this passage that there are two ways to heaven: a) be perfect: do not sin and live in poverty OR b) believe in jesus/god? 2) why did jesus disappoint this rich young man? why didn't he tell him the 2nd way? was it because he hadn't yet ascended the cross and so it was not yet open to the world of men? but if so, does it mean that jesus did not KNOW he was about to ascend the cross? or was he simply trying to send an anti-wealth message?
we are in agreement on that. i think we're entirely in agreement on that. and by the way...i hate to even use the "we're not perfect" thing. now i wish i hadn't even said it, because it really doesn't match my thoughts well at all. my least favorite bumper sticker in the world is the one that says, "Christians aren't perfect...we're just saved." Such a cop-out for a God that called for justice and righteousness in the here and now...instead of paying lip service to some religion for the dead that only concerns itself with "making the cut" to an after-life. Not that that isn't an awesome promise and hope...but that it's become the "all" of Christianity in too many circles.
great questions! yes...be perfect...good luck with that...or you're in need of a savior..that's mere christianity, as C.S. Lewis put it. read that for the takes of a much more intelligent writer than the one you're reading now! i don't know that he didn't tell the rich young man the truth...or that the rich young man didn't hear it later...it isn't reported here, but John points out in his Gospel if he were to record everything Jesus did it would take more paper than he could ever hope to possess.
I don't agree with you on a lot of issues, but, and this is about as high praise as it gets with me, I think you are an honorable man.
If you are truly approaching this from an ignorant perspective, you should be credited for immediately percieving one of the chore theological contradictions which has been debated since Nicea.
nah man. i've read the bible before. just never really paid much attention to this passage til now. not trying to throw a monkey wrench into what i think is a great discussion you two are having here. it's just that these little logical conundrums always gave me the fits every time i tried to sit down and read the bible. if i were god, things would be SOOOO much simpler, and SOOOO much easier... but then i'd be uttering blasphemy...
No, didn't mean to claim you were monkey wrenching (?!). Was impressed. It is a central thrological debate, the source of Luther's calling the book of James ' so much kindling', for example. It comes down to acts vs. faith, and has never been resolved, that I am aware of. From a Christian POV, there is an uncertainty of where the line is drawn between your acts and your faith when it comes to redemption. I am not speaking as a Christian myself, but as someone who has studied the matter and debated the issues with as little prejudice as I can manage. Christianity, as with any faith sytem, is replete with contradictions, which is why it takes faith, ie belief contrary to or lacking in physical evidnce, to ascribe to it. I donlt have a problem with others believing their way past those contradictions, I merely object when those same people attempt to legislate or judge the behaviour of others based on that same illogical faith. Not saying that is happening here, just giving my take on it in general.
coincidentally, these two things i brought up are also my chief objections to christianity, and probably why i still have not converted. 1) i resent the fact that people need an reason to be good (going to heaven, rejoining god, etc. etc.). people ought to be good simply because they are human beings, pure and simple. christianity flat out denies this (live only for god, celebrate god only). in fact, it even denies its possibility (original sin). i resented even more that christianity gave people who did not lead a virtuous life a way out. hitler and jeffrey dahlmer going to heaven really pissed me off too. too many people commit whatever sin they ******* want and then half-heartedly repent at church, and then proceed to forget all about it. human beings already have a unique ability and tendency to rationalise away even their most egregious crimes. and now jesus comes alone and forgives them all. ah hell, why bother even trying to be good? 2) i resent the fact that god (if he existed) had to put human beings in this harsh world, that he had to bring pain and suffering into our lives, that he gave us both doubt and despair, intelligence without enough wisdom, desire without enough satisfaction, and enough enemies both natural and human to test even the most sturdy of our souls. and then proceed to blame it all on us. what sort of cop-out omniscience is this? what sort of demented game is he playing? if he is truly our maker, then are we not mere guinea pigs, playthings which he places on the razor edge between salvation and eternal damnation (with the scales tilted WAY in damnation's favor?) is this responsible? is this how one is SUPPOSED to wield omnipotence? as a way of relating it back to the passion, let me just say that i find it hard to be moved by the passion of christ because if i am to believe the bible, then god put me into this mess to begin with, and then lets jesus "save" me from it? if i tie you onto a railroad track, and muse at your suffering while a train approaches.... will you thank me if i then suddenly untied you at the last minute and threw myself on the track instead? you probably won't cry at my passing. you won't be filled with gratitude. you'll probably just think i'm an utter and complete nutcase. enough ranting. i've blaspheme enough for a day.
Gibson was all "don't go there Diane" when she was asking about his crazy uber-Catholic dad. (who reminded me of Grandpa Griffin on Family Guy) Mel looked like he was about to punch her in the face! What I thought was interesting was there was this Ex-priest on saying there is no context in the movie for the cruxifiction and that it seemed irresponsible to do so. Like there is no backstory why the Jews dislike Jesus and that people who don't know the story would be confused as to the reason for the cruxifiction. And Gibson pretty much admitted that is true and that he didn't care. He said it wasn't his job to mention it.
a more apt analogy is if i tied you and 10 of your friends to railroad track, and then sacrificed myself while untying only 3 of you. are you going to start crying for ME (out of gratitude) as the train passes by and crushes 8 of your friends? i think not. that's the state of the world today from a "christian salvation" point of view. hardly moving. instead i find it a bit horrifying.
frankly i think the more the movie goes into jewish resent against jesus and the motives of their leaders, the more "antisemitic" this film will be perceived... likewise for portraying the political side of the argument why rome had to execute jesus. i think it simply detracts from the chief message of the bible, salvation by the cross, and would degenerate into a blame game and rationalisation. not sure that audiences really need to see it...
From an historical perspective; As far as the Romans were concerned, the excecution would have been less than insignificant. Remember that this was a people for whom conformity to the system was all, and within that system you were free to beleive whatever you wanted so long as it wasn't grit in the wheel. If you got in the way, you were cut down, end of story. They had lined the road from Capua to Rome with crucified slaves following the revolt put down by Crassus. They had killed over a million Gauls, men,women and children, during the @ 10 year conquest, and enslaved as many more. The concern over any non-Roman individual life would have been incalculably small. It is almost a reach to say that the excecution was political from the Roman POV. More to the point would be to say it was routine. Agitators, those who disturb the peace, etc. were almost automatically eliminated, and if they didn't have the backing of the local power structure, even sooner. I doubt it fit caused much of a ripple within the local Roman authority, and wouldn't even have registered in Rome proper. Judea ( and Britain) was a punishment outpost for Romans, akin to Siberia for the USSR, and those sent there would have been looking to be as expedient as possible so as to enable their swift recall to Rome, or at least reassignment elsewhere. From the Jewish POV, it needs more context. Following the Macabee movment, there was a rekindled belief in Judea about a temporal return of autonomy brought about by armed revolt. What was ironic was that the Macabee independance itself was more the result of neglect on the part of various Diadocci than because of anything the Jews themselves brought about. That said, by the time the Romans had become embroiled in the region there was the nostalgic belief that independance was a possibility, and as can be expected, violence was the only considered alternative. As such, when Jesus came along as another in a long line of Messiah, it was assumed that his anti-establishment take was essentially a call for revolution, at it's chore. Even in the unlikely event that Temple elders knew enough of Jesus' actual words to distinguish JC from other, less passive Messiah, it is doubtfull that they would have made the distinction as far as what the effect would be. Add to this the fact that Jesus was condemning all the practices which gave the equivalent of Rabbi their power and comfortable way of lives; commercialism/materialism/adherence to dogma/subserviance to Rome/the money based sacrifice system of the Temple itself, etc. and there is little doubt that they would have seen him as an immediate, if not all that significant threat. There is much evidence to suggest that John the Baptist, among others, had a greater effect during the time of his life, and was seen as a greater threat to the powers that be. So assessing blame is pretty useless, as given Jesus' choices, and the time and place in which he lived, it would have been exceptionally surprising were he not to have been eleiminated, and crucificiation was merely the equivalent to hanging in the Old West, ie done so often as to be beneath real concern. To the ROmans he was a very minor bit og grit in the wheel, to the Jewish leaders he was yet another anti-establishment false prophet calling for an end to the system that supported them.
man...i'm sorry you feel that way. let me say, though, that your depictions of Christianity, of truly trying to be a disciple of Christ from my experience, are less than accurate. you also seem to be denying the idea that we have any sort of free will in how this world is...and what choices we make. I would just encourage you to read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis...not an incredibly easy read, but it might give you another perspective on it. And C.S. Lewis isn't a "read this to get converted" type author. He makes his case, but it's presented as mere logic and the basis for the faith. Hope you find it interesting...or at least a bit more positive than the picture you currently have of Jesus Christ.
madmax, i really appreciate your kind words. (and i always enjoy reading the historical material macbeth has to add). i have actually read the book mere christianity by c.s. lewis and also st. augustine's confessions back in the days when i was being actively recruited into church. i must admit they are both very very beautifully written, but unfortunately neither could dispel my doubts. got nothing against the christian religion (maybe just a little personal aversion). but i think it is probably one of the best out there and that it is ultimately a force for good. and i think people who believe are incredibly fortunate. if this film adds to christianity's ranks of believers or extends its message to a wider audience, then all the power to it.
I think it's important to define what we call Romans. Does that mean citizens of the Roman EMpire and Roman client kings like Herod? It was Herod who was king, who rebuilt the temple. So politics were definitely involved in religion back then, and bucking that authority would have been considered a political problem. There was even an issue regarding a riot in Caesarea where the Jews there had done some damage and the Roman governor ordered them to pay reparations. When they wouldn't do it, the govenor went to Jeruselem to get reparations from the coffers of the temple. This started the first revolt in 66. So the politics and religeon were intertwined at the time. The second revolution was largely brought about because the Jews thought there would be a temple to Roman God built in Jerusalem. The various Client Kings may not have been Roman, but their power derived from Rome, and they did the bidding of the Roman Empire. From Herod's rebuilding of Jerusalem it seems that this was to be his show piece. So any disturbances in that area at the time of Christ might have been viewed as political unrest.
Hmm, this thread has been slightly derailed into MadMax being the Bible Answer Man. Anyway, here's another angle from a Catholic I read in the past few days on the Gibson movie. He basically says that he's not going to see the movie. His reason: movies have a way to etch images into your memory that become dominant in the way you think. As a Catholic, he has been meditating on the death of Christ for years. He is afraid that after seeing the movie, its images would dominate his mind whenever he thought of the passion. That is OK if the images were intended by God. But would you trust a sacred spiritual domination on an entertainer such as Mel Gibson? He is not claiming the movie is an inaccurate rendition of the Gospels account. He just feels that God must have good reasons if the Bible doesn't give all the gory details of the crucifixion event. He'd rather stick to the text than be influenced by a movie. I know a lot of conservative churches are motivating their members to see the movie. But this guy's take is worth being pondered by the faithful. I personally don't totally agree with what he says. What do you guys (especially the devout Christians on this board) think?
Originally posted by Lil Have the Jews EVER said sorry? For what? Since some of them supposedly wanted what they saw as another Jew, a teacher, but a blasphemer, to be put to death by the Romans 2000 years ago for upsetting the social order? My real point is that aren't there still those today who demand the Germans, the Japanese, the French, the Swiss, etc. etc. etc. to collectively say sorry and to be meted huge monetary punishments for the Holocaust and other WW2 atrocities? Well, the injured people are still alive today. Holocaust survivors, raped Koreans, etc. The injury was done by the State, i.e. the government in power, or in the case of the Swiss, their banks collectively hid funds from the rightful heirs until their government finally stepped in. Can you not see the difference?
