(March 22, 2016 at 3:58 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:(March 22, 2016 at 1:32 pm)Won2blv Wrote: 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
Thanks
Quote: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?
My point is that selling all you have and giving the money to the poor will not decrease your chances of getting into heaven, but may increase those chances, therefore by the logic of the wager this action is compulsory.
Quote: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.
This contradicts the point you made above in 1. If you want to say that 1. is talking about a specific instance only, and is not being addressed to everyone, then point 2. is as well because Jesus said that the apostles would have the poor with them always, but that Jesus would not always be with them, so it was fine for Mary to do what she did. As Jesus is no longer here (other than the occasional appearance in a tortilla), the argument no longer applies.
Quote: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.
Think of the best Christian you know. Tell me if there is ONE thing Jesus said that this Christian clearly lives by.
Quote: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
Not a paradox. Jesus said to consider the lilies of the field and the birds of the air: they neither reap nor sow, but God provides for them, so God will provide for humans also. There would be no need for an impoverished apostle to get donations.
So the first thing is that you would have to be a christian that accepts Pascals Wager as a valid reason to believe in god. I never really have been one. But regardless, its not necessarily faith that gains you salvation (I use that word instead of heaven because JW's don't believe we go to heaven) and its not necessarily works. And you can't buy your way to salvation either. I could give all my money to poor people, but if I'm absolutely immoral in every aspect of life, it wouldn't help me much
As to the 2nd point, Jesus was a teacher not a rule maker. He was teaching his apostles constantly. There aren't underwriters in heaven that have a check list and stipulations like its a mortgage loan. There isn't always an absolute right way and an absolute wrong way in every situation. I personally don't think Jesus was saying, "hey, I'm awesome so its ok for her to splurge on me" I believe that he was appreciative of the fact that she went to great lengths to show her respect for Jesus.
Your 3rd point, I'm sure if i get what you're saying 100% but again, I don't believe Jesus left us a checklist and said if we don't do these specific things then we're screwed. Jesus own words were that he set an example and Peter himself later wrote that Jesus an example for us. This shows that we should learn from Jesus discernment and conduct.
And finally, it still has major logical implications. If I have a tv, then according to you, I have an ability to help a poor person. But if i give everything I have, to either a single poor person, or spread out among many, then they have more than I do. Unless they were not christian, I am hindering their salvation if I have this singular thinking. Jesus did say that we shouldn't be anxious over what we will eat, drink, wear, etc. However, this is an issue I take with atheist. You read a scripture and draw absolute rules from them. This just isn't an accurate or reasonable way to read the scriptures.
