(February 27, 2018 at 5:55 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(February 27, 2018 at 12:02 am)The Valkyrie Wrote: No, it's chaotic bastard.

Your kidding me. Their something has got to be not write with you both.

Mein lieben!

(February 27, 2018 at 7:25 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote:

(February 27, 2018 at 5:55 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Your kidding me. Their something has got to be not write with you both.

Mein lieben!

I myself am a perfectly high functioning psychopath.

(February 27, 2018 at 6:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 27, 2018 at 5:31 pm)wallym Wrote: When you read the ole camel through the eye of a needle bit, and Jesus is all 'give up all your stuff, and follow me', do you think he really meant 'Give 15% and go to church on sundays for an hour"?  Or do you think that was a necessary interpretation by the church, because taking him at his word would result in a church with about 8 people? 

Is having excess while others are dying from having none not being evil based on geographical distance?  If your neighbor was starving to death, and you had more than enough food, it'd be evil not to help them, I assume?  But if it's a kid in Africa, same situation, people can rationalize themselves as neutral or even good in the same situation.

I'd hate to have a conscience and have to grapple with that.

To put the camel saying it into context, Jesus was talking about being rich. And "going through the eye of a needle" was a pain, but not impossible. People had to do it all the time.

I'm not saying greed isn't a major sin, because it is. But I don't think any of this means it's sinful to not give away all of our money, especially when we have to take care of our own needs and that of our families/children's. According to the bible, we should all give *at least* 10% once our own basic needs are met. If you're rich and buying useless stuff, or otherwise hoarding excessive amounts of money, you do have the moral obligation to give more.

If your neighbor is starving and you have extra food, of course you are morally obligated to help. And I imagine any decent person would. As for hungry people in other parts of the world, same rule applies, except you'd need to give through charities in that case, rather than directly.

If Jesus had told the rich guy "Donate 10% of your wealth and follow me!"  The rich guy would have done it in a heartbeat.  That would have been easy.  It'd certainly be very doable.  

To me, based on what I know about Jesus, I think he'd be more of the take just what you need, and then the rest goes to helping your fellow man. If actual Jesus were following you asking you to justify all your purchases, that would suck a lot, right?  "No no Jesus, this tile pattern is much prettier than the cheaper linoleum alternative.  Much prettier than a mosquito net is important for that malaria plagued village in africa."  "I'm too tired to make dinner Jesus, that's why we're going out to eat for a price that could feed 10 homeless folks."  

Put bluntly, it's borderline murder by omission.

Went through ttying to figure it out once I discovered it on TVTropes, and whenever I try to think about it, True Neutral appears to be the only choice that fits. Part of me thinks I'd like to think I'd do what's right if given the chance, but the rest of me knows I don't particularly tend to work that way.

The passage describes me to a tee, although, honestly, instead of not feeling strongly one way or the other, I'm often inclined to think strongly for or against both sides simultaneously. Confuse you? Watch The Battle of Algiers. You'll get if you watch it.

You'll love the Algerian rebels fighting for their freedom and despise them for generally being the forefathers of the Islamist rebels we've spent the last 16 1/2 years fighting (up to and including instituting the death penalty for drinking in public). And you'll love and hate the French who fight them because, well, they're trying to defeat these terrorists, but don't give a shit about the collateral damage they cause (according to my Big Book of Horrible Things, about 525,000 people died, making it the 69th-deadliest conflict in history.)

And the more you look at the world, it becomes clear that a depressingly high proportion of the conflicts we're involved in aren't simply Good vs. Evil, or even Good Person with Good Idea A vs. Good Idea with Good Idea B, but French vs. Algerian.

(February 27, 2018 at 7:18 pm)Hammy Wrote: I voted chaotic good by accident. I am 100% chaotic neutral.

Click [Undo Vote] at the top of the poll and change your vote if it bugs you.
And you know it does....heh heh.

I bet you were all like, "Aghhh nooooo....people will think I'm gooood! But I'm not! I'm edgy...Edgy, I tell ya!"

(February 28, 2018 at 12:03 am)wallym Wrote:

(February 27, 2018 at 6:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: To put the camel saying it into context, Jesus was talking about being rich. And "going through the eye of a needle" was a pain, but not impossible. People had to do it all the time.

I'm not saying greed isn't a major sin, because it is. But I don't think any of this means it's sinful to not give away all of our money, especially when we have to take care of our own needs and that of our families/children's. According to the bible, we should all give *at least* 10% once our own basic needs are met. If you're rich and buying useless stuff, or otherwise hoarding excessive amounts of money, you do have the moral obligation to give more.

If your neighbor is starving and you have extra food, of course you are morally obligated to help. And I imagine any decent person would. As for hungry people in other parts of the world, same rule applies, except you'd need to give through charities in that case, rather than directly.

If Jesus had told the rich guy "Donate 10% of your wealth and follow me!"  The rich guy would have done it in a heartbeat.  That would have been easy.  It'd certainly be very doable.  

To me, based on what I know about Jesus, I think he'd be more of the take just what you need, and then the rest goes to helping your fellow man. If actual Jesus were following you asking you to justify all your purchases, that would suck a lot, right?  "No no Jesus, this tile pattern is much prettier than the cheaper linoleum alternative.  Much prettier than a mosquito net is important for that malaria plagued village in africa."  "I'm too tired to make dinner Jesus, that's why we're going out to eat for a price that could feed 10 homeless folks."  

Put bluntly, it's borderline murder by omission.

From what I understand, He was speaking to that guy specifically. Jesus wanted him to leave his life behind and become another one of His diciples. It seems a bit unreasonable to think Jesus literally wants all of us to live off the clothes on our backs and travel around different cities evangelizing. If we were all called to do that specifically, nothing else would ever get done in society, including having children and taking care of your family, and the human race would die off. We are called to follow Christ in our own roles.

Of course it would be very admirable to literally never go out to eat, never buy anything nice, and only live off the absolute bare minimums. There are many saints who lived that way by choice, and it's a great thing. But it is not a moral obligation. We are not morally required to live that sort of life style.

So long as you give a reasonable amount of what you have and don't waste money on useless stuff all the time or live a lavish lifestyle, you are not "sinning." At least not in my faith. Perhaps there are some more extreme branches of Christianity that think otherwise though.

I occasionally watch a documentary show on mtv called The Fabulous Life of the Filthy Rich, and it's absolutely ridiculous and sad to see the huge amounts of money those people drop on things that are just so pointless, just for the sake of it. Like owning a dozen vintage cars that just sit in your huge garage. That, I would say, is very much sinful, and I have a hard time imagining not feeling guilty if I lived my life splurging like that. I can see why Jesus would say it's hard getting into Heaven if you're rich.

I'm definitely a neutral good.

(February 28, 2018 at 1:44 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 28, 2018 at 12:03 am)wallym Wrote: If Jesus had told the rich guy "Donate 10% of your wealth and follow me!"  The rich guy would have done it in a heartbeat.  That would have been easy.  It'd certainly be very doable.  

To me, based on what I know about Jesus, I think he'd be more of the take just what you need, and then the rest goes to helping your fellow man. If actual Jesus were following you asking you to justify all your purchases, that would suck a lot, right?  "No no Jesus, this tile pattern is much prettier than the cheaper linoleum alternative.  Much prettier than a mosquito net is important for that malaria plagued village in africa."  "I'm too tired to make dinner Jesus, that's why we're going out to eat for a price that could feed 10 homeless folks."  

Put bluntly, it's borderline murder by omission.

From what I understand, He was speaking to that guy specifically. Jesus wanted him to leave his life behind and become another one of His diciples. It seems a bit unreasonable to think Jesus literally wants all of us to live off the clothes on our backs and travel around different cities evangelizing. If we were all called to do that specifically, nothing else would ever get done in society, including having children and taking care of your family, and the human race would die off. We are called to follow Christ in our own roles.

Of course it would be very admirable to literally never go out to eat, never buy anything nice, and only live off the absolute bare minimums. There are many saints who lived that way by choice, and it's a great thing. But it is not a moral obligation. We are not morally required to live that sort of life style.

So long as you give a reasonable amount of what you have and don't waste money on useless stuff all the time or live a lavish lifestyle, you are not "sinning." At least not in my faith. Perhaps there are some more extreme branches of Christianity that think otherwise though.

I occasionally watch a documentary show on mtv called The Fabulous Life of the Filthy Rich, and it's absolutely ridiculous and sad to see the huge amounts of money those people drop on things that are just so pointless, just for the sake of it. Like owning a dozen vintage cars that just sit in your huge garage. That, I would say, is very much sinful, and I have a hard time imagining not feeling guilty if I lived my life splurging like that. I can see why Jesus would say it's hard getting into Heaven if you're rich.

That's all relative though, isn't it? We don't like to think of our own lifestyles as lavish. We make excuses because it's personal. It's about us and we don't like thinking of ourselves as The bad guys. But if you were to show someone livin in true famine and poverty in, oh i don't know, name an african country, they would feel about your (i don't know) twelve purses and fiftern pair of Shoes and two cars as you might feel watching someone with a walk in closet largest than your house and ten cars.
We often like to think of ourselves as middle class... What a great delusion that is, no? Truth is, when you look at it objectively, and world wide, i'm rich. I am one of The wealthy. I am one of the lucky few. The blessed, i you will. And If I were a betting man, i'd say you were too.
We just don't like to give these things up. And if The tables were turned, i wouldn't expect those in power to share theirs any more than we do.

I think I put myself in the neutral good category.
That is all.

(February 28, 2018 at 1:44 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 28, 2018 at 12:03 am)wallym Wrote: If Jesus had told the rich guy "Donate 10% of your wealth and follow me!"  The rich guy would have done it in a heartbeat.  That would have been easy.  It'd certainly be very doable.  

To me, based on what I know about Jesus, I think he'd be more of the take just what you need, and then the rest goes to helping your fellow man. If actual Jesus were following you asking you to justify all your purchases, that would suck a lot, right?  "No no Jesus, this tile pattern is much prettier than the cheaper linoleum alternative.  Much prettier than a mosquito net is important for that malaria plagued village in africa."  "I'm too tired to make dinner Jesus, that's why we're going out to eat for a price that could feed 10 homeless folks."  

Put bluntly, it's borderline murder by omission.

From what I understand, He was speaking to that guy specifically. Jesus wanted him to leave his life behind and become another one of His diciples. It seems a bit unreasonable to think Jesus literally wants all of us to live off the clothes on our backs and travel around different cities evangelizing. If we were all called to do that specifically, nothing else would ever get done in society, including having children and taking care of your family, and the human race would die off. We are called to follow Christ in our own roles.

Of course it would be very admirable to literally never go out to eat, never buy anything nice, and only live off the absolute bare minimums. There are many saints who lived that way by choice, and it's a great thing. But it is not a moral obligation. We are not morally required to live that sort of life style.

So long as you give a reasonable amount of what you have and don't waste money on useless stuff all the time or live a lavish lifestyle, you are not "sinning." At least not in my faith. Perhaps there are some more extreme branches of Christianity that think otherwise though.

I occasionally watch a documentary show on mtv called The Fabulous Life of the Filthy Rich, and it's absolutely ridiculous and sad to see the huge amounts of money those people drop on things that are just so pointless, just for the sake of it. Like owning a dozen vintage cars that just sit in your huge garage. That, I would say, is very much sinful, and I have a hard time imagining not feeling guilty if I lived my life splurging like that. I can see why Jesus would say it's hard getting into Heaven if you're rich.

I'm not saying evangelizing.  I'm saying prioritizing like you actually believe what Jesus was preaching.  Do you need a house rather than a trailer?  How much money would that free up to spend on saving lives rather than having some extra room?  

I get the idea it's setting the bar higher than people like, but Jesus is a God who let humans kill him so they can go to heaven even though they didn't deserve it.  In that context, is not eating at applebees once a week, and spending the saved money on food for the food shelter that big an ask?