Read the entire surrounding passage to understand the context. Jesus was on Earth in the flesh. To literally follow him in the flesh and be a part of his mission his disciples had to leave everything behind. Peter, Andrew, James, and John left their boats, Matthew left his tax office, but the rich man would not leave what he had to literally follow Jesus. Peter even compares their situation to his.
I have read the surrounding passages and, more importantly, read them in context with the other quotes, which I fear most Christians do not do. Jesus commanded his followers to live a communistic lifestyle. They may, if they so wish, refuse to follow him in this way but to do so is clearly risky and seen as a sin. Christians are free to live as a true Christian, that of a Christian ''communist'', or not, but the problem is that they tend to distort Biblical passages in an atttempt to solidify support for the modern capitalist system (mammon-worship). Quotes that, semantically, mean the same thing as Biblical quotes are declared to be evil and un-Bibical simply because they can be found in anti-capitalist works (such as Karl Marx's 'Das Kapital'). They are not true believers of the Christian god to begin so it is not surprising that they don't simply argue that Christian socialism is a valid, Biblically-supported lifestyle, , but also lie and declare it ''un-Christian'', despite the fact it was the lifestyle practiced by Jesus and the apostles. It is just so dishonest and despicable.
Also, it is ironic that Fundamentalist Christians are often so keen on holding outdated views (homophobia for one thing), yet, when it comes down to the actual Christian lifestyle, they try all they can to escape it by distorting and, deliberately, misinterpreting Biblical passages. A camel is a camel and the eye of the needle is just that, not simply a narrow gate.
It was voluntary because Peter says that the money was theirs while it remained in their possession.
You have to read that passages in context with other commandments from Jesus Christ, which I have already posted. It is voluntary in so much as any choice in Christianity is but it is sin, an overattachment to mammon.
"the things which are impossible with man are possible with God."
Indeed. I believe I did refer to this. However, ammassing wealth and living in a lifestyle akin to modern capitalism is certainly against the will of God. If God deems SOME rich people worthy of saving, he can. His powers are illimitable and he is, contrary to the hateful picture fundies have painted of Him, just, good and merciful. But, in general, as is clear, I think, with the quotes I posted, richness is associated with wickedness and Jesus Christ instructs his followers to live in a clearly communistic lifestyle as it is simply the right thing to do, and the closest there is to the kingdom of heaven (where there will be no want and inequality amongst men, with the only king being God). He is not coercive so of course it is voluntary, just as it is voluntary worship him anyway. It is all choice. All free will.
This is sadly true. There is nothing inherently wrong or evil about socialism, but there is no requirement to follow this extreme form of it that was only meant as temporary.
Or was it? Just because the Christian community changed in the Roman Empire, it doesn't mean that a communistic life was meant to be temporary, only that it was difficult for citizens of the empire to follow it (though most Christian communities of the poor were still communistic even into the Middle-Ages). Charity, equality and community are core values of Christianity so it is only logical that Christians shoudl build their life on those principles. The only way of doing that would be living in a fair, non-coercive and non-violent socialist society that helps the weak and the poor; a star contrast to capitalist society.
But having wealth that is acquired honestly and with hard work that doesn't harm others or puts it ahead of God and Christ is not wrong either.
Wealth acquired honsetly is the nature of socialist believe. Those who work get what they deserve. Those who work the most get the most, and those who do not work as hard are looked after, as is the nature of charity and community.
But having wealth that is acquired honestly and with hard work that doesn't harm others or puts it ahead of God and Christ is not wrong either. Paul writes of Christian masters with servants. Anyone with servants has a certain level of wealth. God through Paul did not command them to give it all away.
Paul was writing at a time when many Roman elites had already joined Christianity (especially in places liek Greece) so that isn't surprising, although it isn't exactly impossible for a socialist to have servants, most Fabians were wealthy so they did, as long as they do treat them like equal human beings who are simply doing a job that helps you. However, I do not view Pauline Christianity as the be all and end all of Christianity. Paul was a fallible man and was simply part of one Christian factor who eventually became the main branch due to events like the council of Nicea.
This damned burg's getting me. If I don't get away soon I'll be going blood-simply like the natives.
reply
share