I listen to the podcast version every week. I enjoyed your phone call. I'd like to offer some counter points from a JW perspective
1. Jesus was specifically telling that one man what HE needed to do. We don't know if Jesus saw something in him specifically but the end result is that the guy couldn't do it because he had a lot of possessions. So you could draw and absolutist lesson from this, that we should all sell our possessions and give to the needy. Or you could draw the conclusion I did from this account, am I a master or a slave to my worldly possessions?
2. Jesus didn't have hard standards in regards to possessions. Often times, atheists make hard boundaries based off of scriptures. Like Matt and you did from that specific account of Jesus. But think of the time when Mary used a very expensive oil on Jesus feet. The apostles reactions were of disgust. Even specifically saying that she should have donated the money to the needy. But Jesus rebuked them for this hard line they drew. This demonstrates that Jesus didn't advocate or require ALL of his followers to live certain lifestyle of absolute altruism and rejection of material possessions.
3. Paul doesn't have a radically different view from Jesus that christians base their practices off of. This was more of Matt's point, but consider that Paul (if you take him at his word) could have had an illustrious career but chose to make tents. He did this to allow him to preach more. He also warned that the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. He never said money was the root of all evil, as is often misstated. I don't know what Matt was referring to that was radically different from Jesus views on giving, money, and having possessions. Maybe it was the scripture where Paul said that he who does not work does not eat. I would agree that some Christians use that single scripture to justify cutting foodstamps and welfare. But in general, Paul assisted and led efforts to give to the needy and poor.
So I would definitely say that many christians don't have a chris like view towards needy and poor. But Jesus never said that it was an absolute requirement to sell all of your possessions and give them away. Think of the paradox, if I gave all of my worldly possessions away to needy ones, then that would mean the receivers would now have more than me. Would that mean that they would now have to give away what was given in order to attain salvation? I don't think so
1. Jesus was specifically telling that one man what HE needed to do. We don't know if Jesus saw something in him specifically but the end result is that the guy couldn't do it because he had a lot of possessions. So you could draw and absolutist lesson from this, that we should all sell our possessions and give to the needy. Or you could draw the conclusion I did from this account, am I a master or a slave to my worldly possessions?
2. Jesus didn't have hard standards in regards to possessions. Often times, atheists make hard boundaries based off of scriptures. Like Matt and you did from that specific account of Jesus. But think of the time when Mary used a very expensive oil on Jesus feet. The apostles reactions were of disgust. Even specifically saying that she should have donated the money to the needy. But Jesus rebuked them for this hard line they drew. This demonstrates that Jesus didn't advocate or require ALL of his followers to live certain lifestyle of absolute altruism and rejection of material possessions.
3. Paul doesn't have a radically different view from Jesus that christians base their practices off of. This was more of Matt's point, but consider that Paul (if you take him at his word) could have had an illustrious career but chose to make tents. He did this to allow him to preach more. He also warned that the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. He never said money was the root of all evil, as is often misstated. I don't know what Matt was referring to that was radically different from Jesus views on giving, money, and having possessions. Maybe it was the scripture where Paul said that he who does not work does not eat. I would agree that some Christians use that single scripture to justify cutting foodstamps and welfare. But in general, Paul assisted and led efforts to give to the needy and poor.
So I would definitely say that many christians don't have a chris like view towards needy and poor. But Jesus never said that it was an absolute requirement to sell all of your possessions and give them away. Think of the paradox, if I gave all of my worldly possessions away to needy ones, then that would mean the receivers would now have more than me. Would that mean that they would now have to give away what was given in order to attain salvation? I don't think so
