Why should Christians be moral?

[Lek]

And a non-Christian can lead a sinful life then repent on his deathbed and be saved, depending on which denomination you follow. But a wealthy young man who impresses the Christ with his attitude and actions can be denied heaven for the crime of not making himself destitute. Seems to me that "being a good Christian" is a bit of a crapshoot. God doesn't seem very fair, to be honest.

There was one thing still keeping him from giving himself over to God. It was his love of his riches, which he proved by walking away once he heard Jesus' words. Jesus told him what he still needed to do, but his money was more important to him than God.

[Tonus]

There was one thing still keeping him from giving himself over to God. It was his love of his riches, which he proved by walking away once he heard Jesus' words. Jesus told him what he still needed to do, but his money was more important to him than God.

The story tells us that the man had kept "all of the commandments since he was a boy." His wealth did not keep him from living a life in accordance with the law, so Jesus makes up a new rule on the spot. It is stunningly arbitrary and petty, especially from the same man who excused the extravagant waste of a woman who spent a fortune on perfume that she used to anoint his feet. On that occasion, he dismissed the needs of the poor: "you will always have the poor among you." How self-serving!

[Lek]

The story tells us that the man had kept "all of the commandments since he was a boy." His wealth did not keep him from living a life in accordance with the law, so Jesus makes up a new rule on the spot. It is stunningly arbitrary and petty, especially from the same man who excused the extravagant waste of a woman who spent a fortune on perfume that she used to anoint his feet. On that occasion, he dismissed the needs of the poor: "you will always have the poor among you." How self-serving!

The whole purpose of the law was to reveal man's sinfulness. We can't be saved purely from obeying the commandments of the law. In order to be saved we must "take up our cross and follow him." This young man was obviously not willing to take that step.

[Tonus]

The whole purpose of the law was to reveal man's sinfulness.

That's just a further indictment of what Jesus did, then. When the man claimed to have kept the law since he was young, Jesus does not challenge this. So the man had done as god demanded within the law. Jesus simply makes up a new rule in order to cut the guy off at the knees.

Not that the young man should have been surprised. It's likely that he had at least heard about what happened to Job, another man who was put through a wringer in spite of being in god's good graces. Just because you follow the law and live a good life doesn't mean that god won't wreck your life. He is one nasty customer.

[Lek]

That's just a further indictment of what Jesus did, then. When the man claimed to have kept the law since he was young, Jesus does not challenge this. So the man had done as god demanded within the law. Jesus simply makes up a new rule in order to cut the guy off at the knees.

Not that the young man should have been surprised. It's likely that he had at least heard about what happened to Job, another man who was put through a wringer in spite of being in god's good graces. Just because you follow the law and live a good life doesn't mean that god won't wreck your life. He is one nasty customer.

Read to the end of the story. Job was rewarded at the end, as will all who suffer for their faith in God. Also, Jesus didn't cut off young man at the knees. The young man asked him what he should do to inherit eternal life and Jesus gave him a truthful answer. Then after hearing the answer the man walked away sad because he wasn't willing to do what was needed in his case.

[Tonus]

Read to the end of the story. Job was rewarded at the end, as will all who suffer for their faith in God.

Was he? He lost ten children and countless servants and other workers, who were all slaughtered just to see how he would react. His own wife told him to curse god and die, an act that she would have had on her conscience the rest of her life, if not for the fact that she spent those years pumping out another ten children. He got to spend the rest of his life with the understanding that if god decided to turn his life upside-down, he could do so without hesitation or remorse. That's not much of a reward.

Also, Jesus didn't cut off young man at the knees. The young man asked him what he should do to inherit eternal life and Jesus gave him a truthful answer. Then after hearing the answer the man walked away sad because he wasn't willing to do what was needed in his case.

No, he did not give the man a truthful answer. He changed the rules on the spot. Like Job, this man had to realize that if he had gone along with Jesus' request, he might simply add another condition that was required for salvation. Jesus might have been holding a whole bag full of hoops for that poor guy to jump through.

And that's your god. He can do whatever he wants and you have no recourse but to accept it. And he appears to enjoy yanking the rug out from under your feet. It's kind of like a reverse Pascal's Wager: maybe you serve god all your life and he decides to ruin your afterlife because he's god and you're not. So maybe the smart move is telling him to sod off.

[Lek]

Was he? He lost ten children and countless servants and other workers, who were all slaughtered just to see how he would react. His own wife told him to curse god and die, an act that she would have had on her conscience the rest of her life, if not for the fact that she spent those years pumping out another ten children. He got to spend the rest of his life with the understanding that if god decided to turn his life upside-down, he could do so without hesitation or remorse. That's not much of a reward.

It was quite a reward, not withstanding that he received the gift of eternal life with God.

No, he did not give the man a truthful answer. He changed the rules on the spot. Like Job, this man had to realize that if he had gone along with Jesus' request, he might simply add another condition that was required for salvation. Jesus might have been holding a whole bag full of hoops for that poor guy to jump through.

I know. I feel sorry for the poor guy too, but people were never saved by following the law. Even the old testament saints were saved not by following the law, but by their faith in the coming savior.

And that's your god. He can do whatever he wants and you have no recourse but to accept it. And he appears to enjoy yanking the rug out from under your feet. It's kind of like a reverse Pascal's Wager: maybe you serve god all your life and he decides to ruin your afterlife because he's god and you're not. So maybe the smart move is telling him to sod off.

No. Serve him all your life and you'll receive the reward of eternal life with him.

[abaris]

It was quite a reward, not withstanding that he received the gift of eternal life with God.

See, that's the problem I have with all the christian stories. They basically tell you, to quote Monthy Python, "Life's a piece of shit, when you look at it". Meaning, losing ten children, no big deal, you get your reward, once you're dead. Suck up and shut up, enslave yourself to an ancient code of of conduct.

There are countless stories giving that same kind of message. Be good, the afterlife is awaiting you. It's even used by Paul to tell the slaves of the Roman empire to endure their lot, even if their masters are cruel.

[Tonus]

It was quite a reward, not withstanding that he received the gift of eternal life with God.

Which could be taken from him at any time, on god's whim, whether he did anything to provoke it or not. So now he gets to spend eternity looking over his shoulder.

I know. I feel sorry for the poor guy too, but people were never saved by following the law. Even the old testament saints were saved not by following the law, but by their faith in the coming savior.

The young man falls at Jesus' feet and calls him "good teacher" and asks what he must do to gain salvation. Looks like he had a lot of faith in the coming savior. It didn't pay off, though, because the teacher suddenly decided that even that wouldn't be enough.

No. Serve him all your life and you'll receive the reward of eternal life with him.

Unless he decides that you didn't fulfill some arbitrary, off-the-cuff qualification, in which case you're screwed.

[Vicki Q]

Interesting discussion so far. I do wonder if it might be helpful to look at the whole question from the C1 Jewish perspective within which it developed, because a key element is routinely left out.

God's covenant people had previously been defined with respect to their nationality and their praxis. Sanders oversimplified, but it'll do: a Jew got in because of their nationality, and stayed in by virtue of keeping within the boundary markers of Judaism (not eating pork etc).

One of the things that we Xians regularly fail to appreciate is the lengths and extent to which the NT- Jesus and Paul, redefine those definitions. The getting in part became a decision to follow Jesus as King, and the staying in became staying within the redefined boundary markers of Xianity. This is verified and supported by the Holy Spirit. The covenant people of God are redefined around the person of Jesus.

In terms of the OP, a one off decision won't cut the mustard. Covenant membership and covenant faithfulness are two sides of the same coin. The twin doctrines of salvation (Western Xianity) and transformation (Eastern) are two sides of the same coin.

In terms of the rich man refusing to give up his wonga. The question was “What must I do to have eternal life (AKA be part of God's covenant people in the new Kingdom)”? Jesus was saying in effect “Thou shalt have no Gods before me”. In this, personalised challenge, the refusal meant a refusal to follow Jesus.