Echoes said:If you think that the parable of the talent should be read from a financial perspective, you are mighty wrong.
I don't. I also don't see anything in that says money is bad.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Echoes said:If you think that the parable of the talent should be read from a financial perspective, you are mighty wrong.
rhubroma said:Look it up. And, yes, as a historical work, the NT is entirely irrelevant.
RetroActive said:I guess you missed the whips, turning the tables over...calling them thieves. Oh well, selective reading and limited comprehension are synonymous with Christianity these days, particularly in the NA brands.
Exploit the people around you, exploit the natural world in the most destructive ways for your benefit...call it good and engage in 'charity'. Do you guys bother with the anonymous part anymore or do you want your name on it?
Jspear said:The whips and the turning of tables was appropriate for what was going on. They were turning the house of prayer into a place of merchandise. This does not in anyway condemn wealth. This condemns turning God's house into a place for worldly business. If your love for money is greater than God than YES it is a sin. The thing that Christ is most interested in is where our hearts are because wherever our hearts are there are treasures will be.
The bolded: with all due respect in this case you simply didn't read the passage in context.
RetroActive said:Temple = mind.
Jspear said:Temple = Body ("our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit - 1 Cor 6)
This being the case we are called to holiness. While on this earth we are given physical blessings all of which we must honor God with.
Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. 1Ti 6:17
Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, 1Ti 6:18
The rich are not commanded to get rid of their riches, rather they are commanded to trust only in God who supplies us with all things to enjoy and to be rich in good works and to be generous.
RetroActive said:rationalize away.
DL9999 said:That bit at I can agree with. Rational argument appears to be beyond you though. With you, its "You guys this, you guys that", and that's not going to get you anywhere.
RetroActive said:Well, there are currently two people torturing scripture while calling themselves Christians. See how far that gets you. I'll go back to reading the Bhagavad - Gita, or Taoism, or whatever.
I have to listen to my mother-in-law spout absurd nonsense of the fundie variety once a year. What a disaster, but then I get to listen to the obtuse crap on the Christian TV programs at her house too, so at least there's plenty of company I guess.
DL9999 said:I really don't know what your talking about.
RetroActive said:Read the whole of 1Tim. 6. You guys are such brutal hypocrites it's pointless. Pick and choose the verses, interpret them out of context...rationalize away.
Jspear said:Please explain how I have taken this text out of context. I have already made myself clear that the LOVE of MONEY is the root of evil and those who SEEK riches should not. That is also in 1 Timothy 6. This doesn't mean that we switch to the other extreme and say that having material wealth is sinful. If that was the case God would never had blessed certain people in the bible with material blessings. Plus the text that I quoted from Timothy still stands...I used it in context. If you are a believer and you have material wealth, don't love it, don't trust in it, trust in God knowing every good and perfect gift comes from Him, and be generous loving others as much as yourself.
DL9999 said:So the basis for what you wrote is what exactly? Apart from the NT passages you quoted, which are now apparently irrelevant.
rhubroma said:What I'm saying is that the NT was not written with a historical intention, for which it is not historical. It was rather written with the intention to convert people to a Saviour cult. The message of the Christos about wealth could not be more cut and dry, as the examples I mentioned and others attest. It is only that you Christians today living in a system and in a society in which money has become the omnipotent God, find it impossible to reconcile your lives with the true radicalness of the Christ NT sermons in this regard. To me it is uncanny how a religion established 2000 years ago based on a message that clearly indicates a rejection of all worldly goods (this, too, Christ repeatedly emphasized) as the means to salvation, can be so easily forgotten to cleanse today's consceinces.
Beware of Pauline interpretations. In realizing that the Jewish Christians rejected his emphasis, Paul detached himself from them and founded the new religion among the gentiles. At this point the actual teachings of Christ, which Paul never emphasized, were elided so that now salvation simply comes with a sincere belief in the resurrection (sola fede).
My citations were consequently reminders of the non-Pauline emphasis of the actual teachings of the Christ as they are mentioned in the non-historical NT. Not for this, however, are they of any less spiritual value. As I've said before those teachings hold men to an impossible standard, but this doesn't change the standard, much as you would like.
DL9999 said:So there is no basis for your claims other than the NT and your own fantasy?
I listed several passages from the NT in which Christ unequivocally calls for charity. According to the NT, charity was part of Christ's teaching.
Of course you can say the NT is nonsense, Christ never existed and so on. If you adopt that standpoint, it makes no sense to use the NT as the basis for your assertion that charity was not part of the "message" and that material poverty is the one and only way to reach the kingdom of God.
Either we are talking about the NT (I was), or we aren't. Anything else is illogical.
rhubroma said:To me it is uncanny how a religion established 2000 years ago based on a message that clearly indicates a rejection of all worldly goods (this, too, Christ repeatedly emphasized) as the means to salvation, can be so easily forgotten to cleanse today's consciences.
rhubroma said:My citations were consequently reminders of the non-Pauline emphasis of the actual teachings of the Christ as they are mentioned in the non-historical NT. Not for this, however, are they of any less spiritual value. As I've said before those teachings hold men to an impossible standard, but this doesn't change the standard, much as you would like.
Echoes said:Isn't Harris the guy who considered the Iraq War as a humanitarian action or something like that?
Echoes said:When I see that I guess I wouldn't like to be an atheist.
Echoes said:Isn't Harris the guy who considered the Iraq War as a humanitarian action or something like that?
When I see that I guess I wouldn't like to be an atheist.
Don't you get a little lonely sometimes in your ivory tower?Echoes said:Isn't Harris the guy who considered the Iraq War as a humanitarian action or something like that?
When I see that I guess I wouldn't like to be an atheist.
Maaaaaaaarten said:I'm not sure; but his book on ethics was quite poorly received (especially by his fellow philosophers). I haven't read the book myself, but I've heard a public debate with Harris concerning ethics, so I think I have at least a basic idea of what he proposes. If I understand it correctly it's really just some form of utilitarianism, which made watching the debate a waste of my time. Despite nice rhetoric trying to sound as if he's coming with some interesting new idea, everybody who had an introduction to philosophy or to ethics type of course in college/university/whatever won't learn anything new from him.
Merckx index said:This view seems to lead to a program of maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering. Science tells us the specific positive and negative consequences of various acts, and we adjust our behavior accordingly. In a very general sense, most people would have no problem with this, but at the same time, most people believe there is more to life than this.
Merckx index said:Recognizing this raises a thorny question, that I will just mention but not pursue here: how do we know when to reduce suffering, and by how much? Harris’ view presupposes we know all the consequences, immediate and long-term, of any act, but it seems highly unlikely that this would actually be possible or practical.
Echoes said:Isn't Harris the guy who considered the Iraq War as a humanitarian action or something like that?
Echoes said:In 2004 he said this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/1/20041201-090801-2582r/
Perhaps it is time we thought the unthinkable about Iraq. Perhaps it is time we considered the possibility that we will break everything we touch in that country — or everything we touch will break itself. However mixed or misguided our intentions were in launching this war, we are attempting, at considerable cost to ourselves, to improve life for the Iraqi people.
Echoes said:Perhaps W is a believer. Or that's at least what he claims to be but I certainly would never list him as an intellectual reference because in my opinion if you approve of this dirty war, you clearly have a problem. None of my intellectual references would approve of this, I think.
Besides, the neocons' rationale has never been religious. Bush in his speeches constantly referred to human rights and bringing the democracy, which is hardly the rhetoric of a religious crusader. Paul Gottfried debunked that myth very clearly. Also many Iraq War apologists come from left-wing Trotskyism, Hitchens being just one example of it. That is hardly conservative Christianity.