I regularly see people expound a gospel that is directed to “the poor”. I further see the term “the poor” defined in a way that includes only material wealth. Now, given the reality of Jedus ministry as a whole, the entirety of the OT, and what we know of the first century Church, it’s absurd to suggest that salvation is only for “the poor”. Further, given the lack of programs to eliminate poverty on a broad scale and Jesus’ own world about “the poor” always being “with us”, it seems both lazy and shoddy interpretation to take several texts out of context as a pretext to advocate secular government policy regarding poverty and immigration.
The indisputable fact is that there is no way to state with 100% certainty that these prooftexts refer only to material poverty. There is further no rational way to conclude that Jesus was spreading a gospel that excluded people based on such a transitory measure.
The very fact that people are making these sorts of claims from the US, using an internet connected computer or smart phone means that those making the claims are excluding themselves from the gospel. The fact that these arguments are usually made by people who emphatically deny the presence of rules in scripture, and who automatically dismiss any attempt except their own to proceed vide a biblical basis for things, can just be filed under evidence of embracing a double standard.
Finally, the fact that these claims are virtually always made in the context of reasons to make sweeping changes in government policy, seems to indicate the desire for some degree of progressive christian theocracy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
it’s absurd to suggest that salvation is only for “the poor”.
It's almost certain that you haven't seen anyone make this claim. I'm not.
Here's the difference:
In the Bible, we see Jesus clearly state that he came to preach the gospel SPECIFICALLY to the poor.
...is different than...
In the Bible, we see Jesus state that he came to preach the gospel EXCLUSIVELY for the poor.
See the difference?
So, unless you can CITE someone who is saying that salvation was "only for the poor," then you can see that this is a strawman argument.
Further, given the lack of programs to eliminate poverty on a broad scale and Jesus’ own world about “the poor” always being “with us”,
The OT has repeated rules in place for the nation of Israel about how to alleviate the burden on the poor. The Sabbath laws, the Jubilee rules, the Welcoming the stranger rules, the rules against divorcing one's wife (which almost always led to poverty), the rules about watching out specifically for the poor, widows, orphans, etc.
Same in the NT. There are SPECIFIC plans in place to alleviate poverty's negative effects and to slow down accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few elites.
more...
You ARE right that there are no plans to "eliminate" poverty because there almost certainly IS no such plan possible, fully, given human liberty and self determination and bad decisions on the part of some/all of us. Thus, Jesus is correct in saying that we WILL have poverty always with us in an imperfect world. No one has claimed otherwise.
What we HAVE claimed is that there are repeated specific rules and guidelines and morals in place that are CORE to the Grace Gospel of Jesus found in his teachings that expect us to work with, side with, align with and take care with the poor, the marginalized and the strangers/foreigners/those different than us.
It would be lazy and shoddy interpretation of the whole of the Bible to suggest otherwise.
it seems both lazy and shoddy interpretation to take several texts out of context as a pretext to advocate secular government policy regarding poverty and immigration.
Given that the NATION of Israel (a nation with a government) had literal specific policies in place to deal with poverty, it would be ignorance of reality to suggest they don't exist, if that's what you're suggesting.
And given that the Bible and common sense NO WHERE EVER IN ANY SPOT IN THE WHOLE OF CREATION says it's "wrong" for gov't to have policies to alleviate the negative effects of poverty or the harmful aspects of over-accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, hopefully no one would suggest it's wrong to do so.
The indisputable fact is that there is no way to state with 100% certainty that these prooftexts refer only to material poverty.
I am not one to say that there IS a way to state with 100% certainty that the HUGE and CONSISTENT and CLEAR teachings found throughout the Bible about taking care of the literally poor and marginalized ARE talking about what they appear to be talking about. I don't care to or have to "prove" that this is the case. It seems abundantly clear in the text that this is precisely what it is speaking of throughout the Bible and I can't imagine any serious reader of the Bible saying that they DON'T refer literally to material poverty... but, if you want to try to suggest that Jesus did NOT literally say and mean "blessed are you who are poor... Woe to you who are wealthy" when he said those things, you are free to believe whatever you want. It strains credibility that anyone would try to make that case, but knock yourself out if you want to.
There is further no rational way to conclude that Jesus was spreading a gospel that excluded people based on such a transitory measure.
Again, no one that I know of has EVER said such a thing.
And that's all I'll bother with. Nearly every single line in this commentary of yours is just ridiculous and not reality based. Mostly straw men and nonsense.
The points made by people like me, contrary to your imaginary arguments above, are this:
1. That the Golden Rule is a GOOD rule, one that should be taken seriously NOT because you can find a line in the bible that says it, but because it's rational and would tend towards good and healthy and productive and away from harmful and bad.
2. Thus, NO ONE on the left is seriously promoting a "progressive Christian theocracy." No one. No where, no one seriously. Certainly not me and those in my faith tribe.
3. We ARE saying, however, that it is a rational moral good that helps society and, thus, all of us, to look out for, be welcoming to, supportive of the poor, the foreigners, the marginalized, the strugglers, the ill, the widow, the orphans. We should do these things NOT because there is a line in the bible (or Koran or any other text) saying that God or Allah or the Aliens TELL us to do these things, but because they make sense.
4. Why do they make sense? Well, as the Bible notes (but again, NOT because it's in the Bible, but because it's rational), WE were once foreigners/aliens/in need and we would want others to be welcoming and helpful to us. Because it is rational that a society built on basic decency and welcoming for all will be a healthy and good society. One built upon assumptions of greed and hedonism and selfishness (make US great, put US first... the hedonistic tropes of the New GOP model) will be unhealthy and bad.
5. People advocating for policies because they are rational and lead to a better world are NOT, by definition, advocating a theocracy. They're advocating policies based upon reason and morality.
Not that you appear to understand any of this, you'll probably revert to more straw man misrepresentations/understandings of what we are saying, but just in case you have anyone else reading.
I’m impressed. An actual on topic answer.
I’m going to start with your comment that there is somehow a difference between “specifically for the poor” and “exclusively for the poor”.
Then I’ll point out that the laws of ancient Israel you cite are a) from the theocracy period and b) (as you point out frequently) applicable only to ancient Israel and c) not historically accurate.
Then I’ll suggest that it’s absurd for you to suggest that the US, which is historically the most generous nation in the history of the world, is somehow built exclusively on hedonism and greed.
1. I’ve never suggested otherwise. I’ve also not suggested that this particular religious precept be codified in law.
2. Given that the only justification you’ve offered is prooftexting, that doesn’t fit what you’ve actually said.
3. Then make the argument that unfettered, unlimited immigration under all circumstances is an objective “moral good”, in all circumstances. Then, of course, you’d have to apply that standard equally to all nations.
4. Of course there is no where in the Bible (the only text you’ve proof texted) that suggests that the secular government must accept anyone under any circumstances. Nor does Jesus indicate in any way that He’s advocating for governmental action.
5. Except I’m speaking of people who are making an argument for the secular US government to adopt these policies using an argument based solely on biblical proof texts, not on “reason” or any sort of objective “morality”.
Just so you know. Your narcissistic assumption that I’m writing about you is almost never correct. When I write about you, I’ll be specific. I’ll use quotes and I’ll give you credit for the quotes.
Finally, the whole “theocracy” thing is a jab at those on the left who have used that canard for decades whenever anyone has suggested a biblical basis for government policy. But, as you’ve demonstrated of late, picking up on irony isn’t necessarily your strong suit.
One last thought. I know your narcissism leads you to believe otherwise, but not only is this post not directly about you, it’s not evrn directly about this particular issue.
It’s more about pointing out the hypocrisy of folx who unleash all sorts of vitriol against people who advocate for public policy based on a Judeo-Christian worldview. Until, they feel the need to cynically engage in the behavior they’ve criticized so vehemently.
But, I probably wasn’t direct enough for you to pick that up. I apologize.
Again, you missed the point of what I've said and you reach conclusions that I have not promoted and you just aren't understanding my point, progressives' points, or just, you know, reality. I gave it a shot.
Here's a place to start to improve your word understanding...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/exclusively
Clearly you’ve missed the point, and have no desire to not miss the point. Clearly, your narcissistic little brain can’t grasp the fact that it’s not all about you.
But, since you’re here. I’d love to hear you make an argument that’s not simply a proof text, intended to support a pretext.
I am well aware of the meaning of the word exclusive, I’m also well aware of the arguments made by progressives.
If you'll look at my actual words, I never once SAID it was all about me. I never once ASSUMED you were speaking of me.
I'm saying that there are NO PROGRESSIVES (excluding the possibility of a few crackpots) who are saying what you're saying and making the claims that you are making on our behalf.
Do you understand where you are mistaken on that point, now? Please answer.
Here, I'll help. I BEGAN by saying... "It's almost certain that you haven't seen anyone make this claim." Haven't heard ANYONE make this claim. I'm NOT speaking just as if you're talking about what I've said. I'm speaking to the ridiculously and stupidly false claim that you are making about liberals, writ large. I continued...
" unless you can CITE someone who is saying that salvation was "only for the poor," then you can see that this is a straw man argument."
SOMEONE. I'm not speaking just about me. The reality is that you're making up our positions out of your own flatulence and disease, not from what we've actually said.
Can you either admit that reality or provide the claim from a liberal? (and when you CAN'T and DON'T cite a liberal saying what you're saying we say, it will be clear to any readers you may have that it is simply, as I noted, a silly straw man argument.)
As to your request that I, "make an argument that’s not simply a proof text, intended to support a pretext." ...I have no idea what you mean. An argument about what?
Just ANY argument? Like "Jesus clearly taught that he came to preach the good news to the poor. We know this because here's this text where Jesus says, "I have been anointed to bring good news to the poor...' and that is what the text is literally saying... I'm NOT saying Jesus is saying that he came to preach EXCLUSIVELY to the poor, just the reality that 'the poor' are literally specifically cited as who he came to preach to. Likewise, later, when John the Baptist asked Jesus for proof that he was the Chosen One, Jesus response included "and the poor have the gospel preached to them...' That's just what the text literally says. Now, SOME may try to say, 'but when Jesus said poor, he meant poor in spirit and nothing else...' but I would just say that this is literally NOT what the text says and not what the context says."
Like that?
Done. Repeatedly.
Are you going to suggest that ALL the texts that Jesus references the poor, the wealthy, the struggling, the marginalized, the widows and orphans, etc... that in NONE of these repeated and consistent places did he mean the LITERALLY poor, the LITERALLY wealthy? Because I would just respond the text does not support that suggestion and it strains rationality and credulity to suggest otherwise. IF that is what you are suggesting.
Once again your narcissism shows through. Your assumptions that you know what I’ve read and your assumptions that you can speak for anyone but you are plenty.
I could ask you to provide the evidence that you’ve ever talked about the gospel in any terms beyond the context off your proof texts, but I won’t because we both know what would happen. I could ask you if you’ve ever once said anything positive about believers with financial means.
I could point out that you ARE the rich, but it wouldn’t matter.
I could ask you to prove that the terms “poor” and “rich” always, exclusively, and without exception refer to material wealth.
I could ask you to quantity specifically what constitutes “rich” and “poor”.
But I won’t and we all know why.
What the HELL are you talking about? OF COURSE, I am rich! I have always been abundantly clear about that! What the hell difference does that make to this conversation?
And it is NOT presumptuous for me to say that there are no serious progressive conversations that say that Jesus' Gospel was ONLY EXCLUSIVELY for the poor. It is also not presumptuous for me to say that there are no serious progressive conversations advocating for rule ONLY by Purple Unicorns or that we should all travel by helium balloons to the moon to plant little purple heart gardens on the moon. I'm in the world. I'm aware of the general arguments out there being made.
Now, is it POSSIBLE that SOMEWHERE there is a liberal advocating rule by purple unicorns? Sure, it's possible. But it's simply not part of mainstream progressive conversation. Of course it isn't.
Same for the Jesus/poor idiotic false claim you've straw-manned.
I could ask you to provide the evidence that you’ve ever talked about the gospel in any terms beyond the context off your proof texts, but I won’t because we both know what would happen. I could ask you if you’ve ever once said anything positive about believers with financial means.
Again, what the hell are you talking about? I've talked about the gospel a great deal, often dealing with issues of poverty and wealth, but also talking about the more modern "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" theory of atonement as it relates to the gospel. And yes, I HAVE talked about the gospel being preached to the poor and matters of poverty and wealth, but that's how the Gospel is repeatedly represented by Jesus and we're speaking about the Good news of Jesus, I'm referencing the source.
And again, I AM a believer with "financial means," at least comparatively to the rest of the world. As are many/most of the people at my church and in my circles. I'm not condemning all rich people. I never have in any of my words.
Do you understand that reality? That never ONCE have I condemned all rich people? Indeed, I've had positive things to say about YOU, in your wealth. I know that you're a good man (assuming your story you've provided anonymously is true, which I sometimes doubt), who has done good, gospel things with your wealth and time.
I could ask you to prove that the terms “poor” and “rich” always, exclusively, and without exception refer to material wealth.
Read closely and understand: I. Have. NEVER. Said. That. "Poor" and "rich." Are. Always. Talking. About. Material. Wealth.
But I have said that the texts are pretty clear and there has not been historically any serious debate about when Jesus said "Woe to you who are wealthy" that he was NOT speaking about the material wealthy. Or when he said, "Blessed are you who are poor" that he meant anything other than the obvious literal meaning.
On what possible basis would we think that these are secret code words that should be spiritualized and taken NON-literally? Is that what you're even suggesting? Seriously?
And just to be clear about this...
Your assumptions that you know what I’ve read and your assumptions that you can speak for anyone but you are plenty.
Again, I'm not talking about outliers. I'm talking about mainstream progressive Christian thought (since that is what you are referencing). It is not presumptuous to say that, IN THE MAINSTREAM of progressive Christian thought, there is not any serious attempts to say that says salvation is "ONLY for the poor" (which is your claim about what we say).
I should think that is clear, but just to be clear...
You’ve continued to use a lot of words without saying much of anything.
Once again your narcissistic focus on yourself is interesting to watch, but ultimately unhelpful.
...also noting that I've done some searches for the ridiculous suggestion of a salvation "ONLY for the poor" (YOUR unsubstantiated and, frankly, stupid as hell claim about what progressives believe), looking even specifically in liberation theology circles. I can't find a SINGLE suggestion of any such nonsense on the world wide webs, so no, it is NOT presumptuous to say that this is almost certainly not something you have seen in any serious context.
IF you have seen anything, it is most likely another instance of you reading something someone said, READING SOMETHING INTO IT THAT WASN'T THERE, then confusing your inference with what was actually said. You could settle this pretty easily by just citing your source, IF you have any source, which I am saying that you don't.
Other than the actual point of the post, which you haven’t addressed, let’s just say this. You’ve made numerous claims, yet they’re really just assumptions, in the absence of proof...
THAT. That sort of nonsensical, irrational, dodgy, evasive non-response is exactly what makes me think they are not who you claim to be at all. Just a troll. Let me know if you want to actually start dealing with specific questions and answering specific questions.
Given your comments, I have to wonder how carefully you read the post. You seem to be trying to suggest that I’ve said things I haven’t.
But, I’d still love to see any of your public writings where you’ve addressed the gospel in terms other than relating to material wealth. I’d love to see where you’ve expounded on a gospel that is detached from words like poor and rich.
I doubt I will, but it’d be nice.
I’d gladly deal with your specific questions when I have time and when you’ll commit to doing the same.
“...there is not any serious attempts to say that says salvation is "ONLY for the poor" (which is your claim about what we say).”
Except I’ve never actually said that. I’ve certainly not used those words. What I’ve said is that I regularly see the gospel dealt with in a way that is directed to the poor.
I’ve said that this context is frequently used to support government action or policy.
If you’re going to accuse me of attacking straw men, you should probably burn yours first.
You begin your post by saying you regularly see people, presumably liberal Christians, talking about a gospel directed to the poor. That much is fair and reasonable. After all, the gospels do talk about the poor and Jesus says his message a good news is specifically and literally to the poor. You then go on to say however with the caveat. You say, "now, given the reality of Jesus ministry as a whole... It's absurd to suggest that salvation is only for 'the poor.'"
Your literal words.
Now, to a reasonable outsider, that sounds like you're suggesting that this is what Liberals are suggesting. Will you clarify here and now and say that, no, of course no liberals are saying that salvation is only for the poor...?
Dan,
It’s interesting that you’ve chosen to approve of the murder of a man trying to share the gospel to the actual literal poor. That you’ve chosen to impugn his motives for simply doing what you say he should have been doing.
Yet, you’ve gone to great pains to agree with what I actually said.
Again, if you ever wish to engage in rational adult reasonable conversation based on, you know, words and stuff, let me know. If, on the other hand, you think you're being rational, well, I'm sorry.
Ahhhhh, the excuse for running away. It’s inevitable, it’s just a question of how quickly it comes.
One question.
What is The Gospel!
If you go to my blog and do a search on the top left-hand corner, and Inter gospel, you'll see about a dozen log entries where I talk about what the gospel means in a variety of ways. I'm pretty sure you read them all before.
In short, the gospel is literally good news. In reference to how Jesus used it, he said specifically and literally he had come to preach good news to the poor. I think taken in whole, especially looking at Jesus words (since we're talking about the Gospel of Jesus), you see that is a gospel of grace, of welcome, of love, of community.
That is, for poor people, for the marginalized, for widows and orphans... For these people, especially, a gospel that teaches you're welcome, you are invited to the dinner table (as Jesus noted), that you aren't a hopeless sinner, but that you can be and are being saved by God's grace, by God's gift, and you are welcome to be part of this community where the gospel is sharing not taking, the gospel is cooperation not attacks, the gospel is love and acceptance, not hate and exclusion... This is good news. As is taught in the Bible and found in the teachings of Jesus.
No time at present to go through every comment here, but this one caught my eye because the whine has been made before"
"In the Bible, we see Jesus clearly state that he came to preach the gospel SPECIFICALLY to the poor.
...is different than...
In the Bible, we see Jesus state that he came to preach the gospel EXCLUSIVELY for the poor.
See the difference?"
The former more than vaguely suggests the latter. If it's "specific" to the poor, then it is "specifically" not for anyone else, thus exclusive. It is NOT to the materially poor that Jesus intended the message, but to the spiritually poor.
What's more, Dan, you continue to conflate these types of messages with those that teach about how we're to address poverty and need in our midst. If you're too infantile or adamant to go beyond your socialist leanings when interpreting Scripture, then you'll continue to fall short and the Christ you claim to follow will always be no more than one of your own invention.
So the problem appears to be that you always have a hard time with language. If I'm a candy maker and I marketed specifically to Children, am I going to refuse to sell it to adults? No. Specifically does not mean exclusively. Dictionary of fellas. Use them.
There is a linguist stick or grammatical rule that says that you can’t use a word to define a word. So simply saying that the gospel is the good news, good news being the literal actual definition of the term gospel, says nothing.
As far as the last paragraph, you manage to list a lot of your opinions about what the gospel is, but no fax that I can identify. Further, there’s nothing in your list of terminology, that specifically applies only, or primarily, to the poor. But I commend you for the attempts, when I have time I’ll even search your blog. But I have to note the fact, that despite all of your protestations, when asked to define the gospel you chose to defined it virtually entirely As something for the poor.
Yet, you haven’t explained why (to use your analogy) the gospel is “marketed” to “the poor” primarily. You seem to be suggesting that the primary focus of “the gospel” is “the poor”, but that anyone else can slip in if they want. The question is, why? Why would “the gospel” prioritize people by socioeconomic status? Where is the line between “poor” and “marketed to” and everyone else?
If the gospel is primarily aimed at, and “marketed” to “the poor”, why is there such s spectacular lack of improvement for “the poor” during Jesus earthly ministry? Why was Jesus so nuggardly when it came to feeding people. Twice he fed thousands (but only one meal), and He wouldn’t even let them have the leftovers. Why didn’t he feed all the hungry? We know why He didn’t give them money, but why not more food? Why not heal everyone?
I'll say that your last question is at least interesting.
It would be my suggestion that Jesus DID improve things for the poor. Not overnight and not all himself but Jesus teachings helped shape and change societies.
Dictatorships and cruel regimes like the ones that existed back then do not exist today nearly as often and I think that's at least in part (although not exclusively) to the teachings of Jesus and the ideals of human Liberty and human rights for all regardless of income level.
I would say that Jesus' teachings are progressive and lead to a progressively better world. Slavery is greatly greatly reduced from how it was in his day and how it was even 200 years ago. Women's rights exist now and they didn't then. The rights of people with disabilities and illnesses and mental illnesses are all much improved over 2000 years ago and over 200 years ago and over 50 years ago.
And all those groups would have been impoverished groups and were impoverished groups by and large, and thanks to enlightened Progressive thinking as embodied by the teachings of Jesus, things are better than they were.
Thanks be to God and the Gospel of Jesus the Christ... that gospel which Jesus said he was anointed to preach to the poor. Again, are you suggesting that this is not speaking of the literal impoverished? Why would you reject the clear and obvious literal teaching in this case when you insist upon it on so many other cases?
As to why did Jesus identify the socioeconomically poor as the target of his audience gospel? Jesus literally did not say, so I would be unwilling to speak authoritatively on behalf of Jesus what he did not tell us.
But I think the answer is reasonably clear using just reason. The poor and oppressed and marginalized are the ones who are most in need of the realm of God. They are in need of a community, a family of people who will be their tribe, their support group... who will work with them and stand up alongside them.
As Jesus said to the rich "you've already had everything you need in this world." The poor haven't . They need this good news especially.
Now, if you are going to define the gospel as the good news that an Angry God killed his own son so the his magic blood could pay somehow literally for the "sin debt," then I understand why it would make less sense. But perhaps the problem is you have a commitment to a gospel that is different than the one that Jesus talked about and that's why it's confusing for you...?
So, you don’t have a specific answer as to why Jesus was unwilling on unable to alleviate all poverty during his earthly ministry.
Of course, the fact that you’ve decided to demean and minimize the orthodox sense of The Gospel speaks volumes.
The fact that you appear to be limiting the gospel to a purely temporal “gradual minimal improvement”. Speaks volumes as well.
Because there were definitely significantly less oppressive, dictatorships and certainly didn’t exist in the 20th century, and there are plenty of countries where oppression is the rule.
One wonders why Jesus didn’t do better. Did He not have the ability? The power? The desire? Why was He so niggardky?
you don’t have a specific answer as to why Jesus was unwilling on unable to alleviate all poverty during his earthly ministry.
I DO have a specific answer that I've already said. Did you miss it?
Jesus LITERALLY did not say WHY he was coming to preach good news to the poor specifically. HE DID NOT SAY WHY.
NOR did he say why he didn't heal everyone or make everyone rich.
Given that the author of the text did NOT SAY WHY, I don't know why he said it or why he didn't do what you think he perhaps should have done, IF he was concerned about the poor. How could I? (and I don't know if that is what you're saying, you're not making much sense and you're not answering questions... DO you think Jesus didn't mean literally poor? Do you think Jesus should have healed everyone?
I have given what I think is a reasonable guess at his motivations, but since he didn't explain, I don't know.
Why? Do you think you DO know the answer to that question that Jesus didn't answer?
Really?
It’s interesting, you’re willing to make specific speculations (in a definitive manner) about other aspects of this that the text doesn’t definitively speak to, but not this one.
Is it perhaps that you speculate that Jesus was limited to this sort of gradual, meandering, directionless process that’s made things somewhat incrementally better over the last 2000 years?
I think the reason you don’t have an answer is that your worldview is limited by your own biases.
For me, I’ll go with the Biblical concept that The Gospel is that Jesus came to right all wrongs, to reconcile sinful humanity to a holy God.
You’ve concocted a Jesus that’s limited to some minimal degree of mitigating a small percentage of a small percentage of the material, temporal sufferings of the undefined “poor”, over thousands of years. That’s good news there. The fact that it’s not really “the poor”, it’s some of the poor. It’s not that poverty will be eliminated, it’ll just get marginally less bad over centuries.
There’s none of that forgiveness of sin crap. None of that eternal life in the presence of Jesus. Just the faint hope that you’re great, great, great, great, great grandchildren might be one of the lucky ones who’s life has been improved.
Don’t get me wrong, I completely agree that much (virtually all) of the amelioration of suffering over the last 2000 years has been motivated by a belief in Jesus, by people who’s lives have been changed. There’s a great book that documents much of the good that’s been done.
But to limit the Gospel to simply that sells Jesus short.
It’s interesting, you’re willing to make specific speculations (in a definitive manner) about other aspects of this that the text doesn’t definitively speak to, but not this one.
These questions you ask, Jesus literally never hints as to what his motives are. Does he? He never said, "I came to preach specifically to the poor and marginalized because..." On the other hand, he DOES say that he came to preach good news specifically to the poor, literally, right? Can you admit that reality that this IS what the text literally says?
Are you asking me to speculate about Jesus motives on topics he didn't tell us?
Well, he didn't tell YOU why he didn't heal more people or make people rich. Nor does he tell you WHY he "requires" a literal "blood sacrifice" as the literal "ONLY WAY" to achieve forgiveness, does he? You just accept that human tradition (not Jesus' words) because... well, it's the tradition you believe in. Which is fine, but why do you expect something from me that you're not willing/able to do?
I ALSO can't give you a specific authoritative answer as to Jesus' motive on why he "allowed" atomic bombs to be built or why he allowed Hitler to kill so many people. Nor can you. What of it?
I’ll go with the Biblical concept that The Gospel is that Jesus came to right all wrongs, to reconcile sinful humanity to a holy God.
It's a human tradition based upon Paul's explanation of the Gospel that you choose to give priority over Jesus' words, moreso than a "biblical concept." And I'm fine with the notion that Jesus came to reconcile sinful humanity - including the sin of ignoring the needs of the poor, the ones Jesus specifically says he came to preach to - as part and parcel of Jesus' gospel of grace. Of course, living the Grace Life in the community of God includes asking for forgiveness and extending forgiveness, freely, because you love the ones who've wronged you, NOT because someone gave you some blood to pay for that sin. So, that is not contrary to the idea of the Gospel as Jesus taught.
But then, someone might ask you why God DIDN'T "right all wrongs," since wrong was still in the world, so the "problems" you raise with my understanding of Jesus you have with your understanding.
Yet you’re willing to take two verses as if they trump everything else Jesus said about His purpose. Your willing to put forth all sorts of speculation (declarations really) about God’s position on all sorts of things, but not these things. You’re willing to make proclamations about what God loves, but not about Jesus refusal to give the poor his leftovers. The rich get miracles of the best wine imaginable, the poor don’t get the scraps of bread and fish.
You really can’t seriously tell me you’re proud of Jesus’ record in eliminating poverty and disease?
I’m sure it all comes down to who Jesus was and His nature. Is He the very one who spoke the universes into existence, the Logos who was with YHWH and who was YHWH, or is he a poor, homeless, rabbi, who dispersed some good moral teaching? Is He The Way, Thhe Truth, and The Light, or just one more road that leads to God?
Those are the kinds of questions you’re really hoping to avoid, aren’t they?
Yet you’re willing to take two verses as if they trump everything else Jesus said about His purpose.
1. Hasn't happened. No where have I said that these two verses are more important than everything else Jesus said. I just have cited them to note what they DO say. You, on the other hand, appear to want to pretend they don't exist.
2. What has Jesus said about his purpose? There at the beginning of his ministry, he STATED his purpose, at least in part. What else? That he had come to seek and save the lost? Sure, no problem. One does not trump the other. Do you understand that one can believe and take Jesus seriously and even literally when he came to preach good news to the literal poor AND still believe that he had come to seek and save the lost? That the two are not mutually exclusive?
What else do you think Jesus' purpose was, according to Jesus?
You really can’t seriously tell me you’re proud of Jesus’ record in eliminating poverty and disease?
He didn't eliminate poverty or disease. Nor have you. What of it, you pervert? Are you seriously criticizing Jesus because he didn't do enough, in your petty little imagination?
The reality is, short of some magic miracle solution where POOF! God creates food that grows everywhere in sufficient supplies for everyone - and there is NO indication that God works that way, surely you agree with this? - Jesus DID provide a miracle and WORKABLE way for us to solve hunger to the degree it can be solved: Follow his Way of Grace. His Way of Sharing. His Way of Simplicity and Enough for All.
IF Christians were serious about poverty and hunger, we could solve it now, today. Go and sell all your church buildings, your fancy pews and gold plated shit, give the money to the poor and follow Jesus. Or just follow Jesus. The early church model of sharing with those in need would make an INCREDIBLE impact upon hunger and poverty. That IS Jesus' way. That IS his miracle. Us.
And yes, I DO believe he is the one who Created the World AND the poor homeless rabbi who shared the Truth about the Way of Grace. The two are not mutually exclusive. And I ain't avoiding shit. Take a look in the mirror for someone who is dodging nearly EVERY question sent your way.
What the hell are you arguing? Because you're sounding more and more like a god-hating pagan than any traditional Christian.
1. Not at all. I’ve never said or even hinted at that. The fact that I’ve only seen you prooftext those two verses when it comes to Jesus purpose however undercuts your claim.
2. Jesus said much about His purpose, “I have come that you might have life, and Have it in abundance.”, “I am The Way...”, “I came to give my life a ransom for many.”. There are plenty more.
I’m not criticizing Jesus at all. Im simply pointing out that if His primary purpose was to provide succor to the poor, He failed. So, one must ask why His actions didn’t match His words.
I’m suggesting that His purpose was not the alleviation of temporal discomfort, but the eternal reconciliation of a sinful, fallen creation, to a perfect, Holy God.
Where does Jesus preach a “way” of “enough for all”, in this world?
You’re right that the Church could and should do more to alleviate suffering in the world. Unfortunately, you tend to focus on government supplanting the role of the church, and try to firmly attach Jesus to your political agenda.
If I was to compile a list of the questions you’ve avoided, and the vitriolic personal attacks you’ve promulgated in the last 6 months, we both know it would be a very long list.
You say you believe Jesus created the world, but deny the creation, you mention “the way of grace”, but dodge “I Am, The Way, The Truth, The Life.” and the “No one comes to The Father except through Him.”.
I’m arguing, that your “social gospel” Jesus isn’t sufficient. I’m arguing that, by your standards, Jesus has failed in His primary purpose. I’m arguing that aligning Jesus with a partisan political ideology is a huge mistake.
I’m arguing for The Gospel that reconciles repentant sinners to a Holy God, no matter what their financial situation is. In short, I’m arguing for the Jesus of the entire Bible, who can’t be stuffed into a box.
If that’s what “hating pagan”s believe, then I’m not sure you understand the terms. FYI, your arguments are much more in line with pagans,atheists, and other non Christians than mine.
Dan,
Further, I’m arguing for a Jesus who lives and is still active in people’s lives. (I’ve seen too much this summer to believe otherwise). I’m not arguing for a Jesus who was and who passed off His core focus to sinful, fallen humanity and simply stands and watches from the sidelines. I’m arguing for a Jesus who has forgiven me to such a great extent that choose to follow His commands to the best of my limited ability. I’m arguing for a Jesus who set His people apart from the beginning of time, and who prepared good works for us do do (to His glory) from the beginning.
Dan has no idea of what "literally" means with regard to the teachings of Christ. He may have literally said a particular set of words...that is, used specific words...but the literal meaning of the message the arrangement of those words in the sentences in which they appear is lost on Dan. The link I provided for him at his blog on this subject speaks directly to the language and how it was intended and understood at the time and it backs it up very well. Better yet, it relieves us of this entire conversation and the frantic and desperate need on Dan's part to justify his socialist perspective. Questions like, "so it's better to be poor?" and such are unnecessary when "bringing good news to the poor" is understood properly...which is bringing the news that the Kingdom of God is available (the "good news") to all who acknowledge their need for Him (the poor). When Dan conflates Christ's message of why He came and for whom, with His teachings about charity (when we feed the hungry, we're feeding Christ, for example), he ties himself in knots trying to define who the financially poor are exactly and why they're in greater need of the good news than is anyone else to the extent that Christ came to specifically bring the news to them. It's absurd. He came to bring the good news to the poor in spirit, regardless of the "literal" words He used to explain His coming in human form.
Dan has several...maybe a dozen or more...posts about "the Bible and economics" wherein he totally indicts himself with this level of misunderstanding. In almost every one of them, he makes these serious errors of interpretation to justify his "simple living" philosophy as a most accurate manifestation of Christian teaching. He believes Christ was so concerned about economic matters that he ignores how many of that upon which he opines is simply nothing more than "put God first in all things" so that one doesn't end up trying to serve two masters. Dan can't wrap his mind around the concept of a devout Christian...a true "good and faithful servant" of God...can be at the same time a billionaire. Dan lusts after the image of humbly living simply as others do money. Ironic. But there is no eradicating poverty with such a philosophy, as there is no advancement that results in fewer impoverished than by achieving enough to provide for what poor there are.
Dan essentially has two modes of biblical interpretation. One is his dogged, obtuse, wooden literalism where he plucks small texts out of context to buttress his predetermined hunches. Two is where he sacrificed everything on the alter of fantastical metaphor and myth. There’s no in between, no context, no contradictory passage that will get him off of either of these extreme positions.
I'm being quite harsh to Craig, any outsiders who may stop in, because I'm half convinced he's a Russian or other troll, given his constant evasions of direct answers, his dodgy-ness, his anonymity, and his stupid-as-Trump but twenty times as pasty bland non-positions
“I'm being quite harsh to Craig, any outsiders who may stop in, because I'm half convinced he's a Russian or other troll, given his constant evasions of direct answers, his dodgy-ness, his anonymity, and his stupid-as-Trump but twenty times as pasty and bland non positions”
“Indeed, I've had positive things to say about YOU, in your wealth. I know that you're a good man (assuming your story you've provided anonymously is true, which I sometimes doubt), who has done good, gospel things with your wealth and time. “
The above are two exact quotes written by the same person, with me as the subject, within a 24 hour period of time. Do these two radical extremes seem like the response of someone who is balanced mentally?
I’d like to deal with the little passive aggressive bit in the complimtary quote.
1. I’m not anonymous, I’ve been quite free in various ways with my personal contact information. As a matter of fact, Dan has been given my personal email address which includes enough information for him to find other areas of presence on social media.
I don’t put out all of my personal information publicly, because the organization I previously worked for had an oppressive social media policy and I preferred not to get fired and it’s simply stupid to put personal information out online anymore than necessary. Be all that as it may, I’ve been communicating with Dan for more than 5 years, he’s had at least two of my private email addresses, and access to my full name which would get him what he claims to want.
Recently he’s been making this ridiculous “Russian troll”, claim as a false excuse to delete comments as well as to run from arguments that cause him difficulties (which also get deleted).
Truth is the best disinfectant, so I thought I’d put it out there.
After months of these ridiculous “anonymous”, Russian troll” accusations, he’s finally demanded that I “prove”, that I’m the person he’s been corresponding with for years.
When he can prove he's not feo.
Just in case Dan chooses to delete this, proof that I’ve offerd what he demands.
I’ll play you game with a few ground rules.
1. Once you agree, I’ll send you a Facebook pm with my phone number
2. You will under no circumstances delete this comment.
3. You will not share any of my personal information with anyone, I share pretty freely, but that doesn’t give anyone else permission to do so.
4. That you will immediately write a new post at your blog, profusely and sincerely apologizing both for your lies, and for failing to simply ask before you spread lies.
The ball’s in your court now.
ReplyDelete
CraigDecember 4, 2018 at 7:38 PM
FYI, when you go to my FB page you’ll find pictures of me torturing helpless Haitian children, building cages to cram immigrants into, and packaging/loading millions of “meals” to infect poor children with diseases.
ReplyDelete
Once again, in the interest of preserving the truth.
I’ve told you I would, the fact that you choose to not respond like a decent human being is not my problem. With all of the lies you’ve told about me, I have ample reason not to trust you. It should go without saying that a common decency alone would mean an apology from you. Apparently common decency is not on the menu
Post a Comment