“The bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world?”
I wonder where these beliefs come from. The people who believe these things are presumably quite religious. Did their church tell them this? Did they come up with it on their own? Do they not read the Bible?
They read the bible, don't like it, so make up new beliefs they prefer. While doing this, they use doublethink and crimestop to prevent themselves from being consciously aware of what they're doing.
I don’t really like when discussions like this revolve around the words command or obedience. I get where that comes from, but I don’t think it’s all that helpful to change minds and hearts.
But we can think of these passages as an invitation to look at our attachments and how they may not only be robbing others of life, but also ourselves. Hoarding wealth is good for no one, and I think this wisdom literature points to that reality.
We don’t get rid of wealth so we can be super rich in the afterlife. We do it because it is life-giving in the kingdom of God that is now and eternal. That as we let go of attachments we find ourselves more free, more open to love, more generous.
I think the other thing usually overlooked in the NT is that the main players, Jesus and Paul, believe in an imminent literal second coming - in most people's lifetime. Perhaps rich Christians can legitimately argue that the situation is different if they expect to live another 50 years and leave heirs?
Just a suggestion. I am neither Christian nor rich.
Good point, although (A) presumably Christians would dispute that Jesus had this false belief, (B) a lot of the passages seem clearly about issues of economic justice.
Absolutely right Philip. The position Jesus took was typical of the peasant perspective. Everyone needs the basics of life. The accumulation of wealth, while others don't have enough, is wrong. But governments don't like it. And governments find ways to choose religious leaders more to their liking.
This discussion neglects recent advances in NT scholarship. As recent work has shown, “rich” is NT Greek shorthand for “rich in poverty”, and “poor” is best rendered as “poor in bankruptcy”
Which discussion? I just shared some quotes. But I do think it's pretty hard to interpret many of these passages in this way, especially the passages from James, who's pretty damn woke! Which work are you referring to?
Ooh, I meant to ask you: on Twitter you’ve framed the problem of evil in deontological terms (‘just as a doctor can’t kill one patient to save five, God can’t subject us to evil for the sake of greater goods’, or something like that) — is there anywhere you’ve framed the problem this way in print? I’m writing a paper on the deontological problem of evil and I want to cite you if possible :)
“The bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world?”
- Kierkegaard
Poor and rich are as normally understood and the warning is about the accumulation of wealth.
I wonder where these beliefs come from. The people who believe these things are presumably quite religious. Did their church tell them this? Did they come up with it on their own? Do they not read the Bible?
They read the bible, don't like it, so make up new beliefs they prefer. While doing this, they use doublethink and crimestop to prevent themselves from being consciously aware of what they're doing.
There's good money to be made peddling this sort of sophistry!
I don’t really like when discussions like this revolve around the words command or obedience. I get where that comes from, but I don’t think it’s all that helpful to change minds and hearts.
But we can think of these passages as an invitation to look at our attachments and how they may not only be robbing others of life, but also ourselves. Hoarding wealth is good for no one, and I think this wisdom literature points to that reality.
We don’t get rid of wealth so we can be super rich in the afterlife. We do it because it is life-giving in the kingdom of God that is now and eternal. That as we let go of attachments we find ourselves more free, more open to love, more generous.
Why settle for an afterlife when you can afford to build lavish existential cocoons on earth.
I think the other thing usually overlooked in the NT is that the main players, Jesus and Paul, believe in an imminent literal second coming - in most people's lifetime. Perhaps rich Christians can legitimately argue that the situation is different if they expect to live another 50 years and leave heirs?
Just a suggestion. I am neither Christian nor rich.
Good point, although (A) presumably Christians would dispute that Jesus had this false belief, (B) a lot of the passages seem clearly about issues of economic justice.
I think it’s absolutely clear, there’s no wriggle room.
Absolutely right Philip. The position Jesus took was typical of the peasant perspective. Everyone needs the basics of life. The accumulation of wealth, while others don't have enough, is wrong. But governments don't like it. And governments find ways to choose religious leaders more to their liking.
This discussion neglects recent advances in NT scholarship. As recent work has shown, “rich” is NT Greek shorthand for “rich in poverty”, and “poor” is best rendered as “poor in bankruptcy”
Which discussion? I just shared some quotes. But I do think it's pretty hard to interpret many of these passages in this way, especially the passages from James, who's pretty damn woke! Which work are you referring to?
Joke
ah, feel embarrassed now
blessed are the poor in jocularity, for they will receive an embarrassment of riches
Ooh, I meant to ask you: on Twitter you’ve framed the problem of evil in deontological terms (‘just as a doctor can’t kill one patient to save five, God can’t subject us to evil for the sake of greater goods’, or something like that) — is there anywhere you’ve framed the problem this way in print? I’m writing a paper on the deontological problem of evil and I want to cite you if possible :)
In the 'Why?' book.
I’ll reread that chapter — thank you!!