I was on the atheist experience :)

[robvalue]

Yes, such advice from Jesus makes no sense to us because it was intended to be very short term. He was to return before long, so people wouldn't need possessions and such. But he didn't, so following this advice long term is dumb and not even Christians do it.

And for sure, playing pass the parcel with money and possessions makes no sense either.

[Won2blv]

Yes, such advice from Jesus makes no sense to us because it was intended to be very short term. He was to return before long, so people wouldn't need possessions and such. But he didn't, so following this advice long term is dumb and not even Christians do it.

And for sure, playing pass the parcel with money and possessions makes no sense either.

I think you missed my point that Jesus never even said that all his followers needed to give up their possessions in the first place. Before he ascended to heaven he said to "go and make disciples." He didn't say, "wait here and give away all your shit. I'll be just a few minutes... couple years max"

[Nihilist Virus]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Won2blv]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[robvalue]

I think you might be starting from the conclusion that what Jesus says must make sense, or must be generally "good advice".

The fact that you're throwing up very real and logical objections shows that this isn't the case, and I think you're trying to let Jesus off the hook rather than say his words are not always very good.

Just my opinion. I've seen similar thinking from almost every religious theist, that the bible must make sense, so any concession or excuse is automatically justified.

[Won2blv]

I think you might be starting from the conclusion that what Jesus says must make sense, or must be generally "good advice".

The fact that you're throwing up very real and logical objections shows that this isn't the case, and I think you're trying to let Jesus off the hook rather than say his words are not always very good.

Just my opinion. I've seen similar thinking from almost every religious theist, that the bible must make sense, so any concession or excuse is automatically justified.

But are you dismissing the point that every statement doesn't necessarily need to be read as absolute? Is not the atheist starting from the conclusion that it would not make sense and have a confirmation bias that a contradiction would make more sense than a rational explanation? I don't believe its been demonstrated that Jesus made an absolute rule that salvation requires giving away all your possessions to the needy.

And I personally have come to the conclusion that the bible doesn't make sense in a lot of areas. That being said, its in my personal nature to require satisfactory explanation when I don't view a claim as being clearly explained and logical. Have you found me saying the typical theist lines? Like, just gotta have faith! Or, God works in mysterious ways? I don't believe I have appealed to those weak arguments.

[robvalue]

It is written as absolute at some points, and not in others. The book is a mass of contradiction, as evidenced by Christians not even agreeing on what exactly you have to do. There is no possible way to find out what Jesus "really meant", if he existed at all, or said any of the things attributed to him if he did.

There doesn't seem to be any indication in the book as to when he's talking literally and when he isn't. So I think you might be filtering it in order to make sense of it. However, maybe you do have other good reasons to suspect a certain part isn't literal.

I meant you seem to be doing the same kind of things theists do, when they we convinced a character must have something good to say; so if it sounds not so good they can't have meant it how it is written. I'm suggesting maybe what the character is saying just isn't very good. I didn't mean all your thinking was like a theist, sorry if it came across that way. If I was taking this all seriously, I wouldn't take chances on Jesus not really meaning some stuff.

But you're entitled to interpret it however you want. It was just an observation. I'm sorry if I offended you, or misunderstood. It's not a big deal, I probably made it sound like a bigger objection than it was. I'll shut up now and leave you alone. I'm impressed you've analysed the bible in more detail and have come to your own conclusions.

Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Sounds pretty absolute to me.

http://biblehub.com/mark/10-21.htm

http://youtu.be/5mLOUWl-L-s

[Won2blv]

It is written as absolute at some points, and not in others. The book is a mass of contradiction, as evidenced by Christians not even agreeing on what exactly you have to do. There is no possible way to find out what Jesus "really meant", if he existed at all, or said any of the things attributed to him if he did.

There doesn't seem to be any indication in the book as to when he's talking literally and when he isn't. So I think you might be filtering it in order to make sense of it. However, maybe you do have other good reasons to suspect a certain part isn't literal.

I meant you seem to be doing the same kind of things theists do, when they we convinced a character must have something good to say; so if it sounds not so good they can't have meant it how it is written. I'm suggesting maybe what the character is saying just isn't very good. I didn't mean all your thinking was like a theist, sorry if it came across that way. If I was taking this all seriously, I wouldn't take chances on Jesus not really meaning some stuff.

But you're entitled to interpret it however you want. It was just an observation. I'm sorry if I offended you, or misunderstood. It's not a big deal, I probably made it sound like a bigger objection than it was. I'll shut up now and leave you alone. I'm impressed you've analysed the bible in more detail and have come to your own conclusions.

Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Sounds pretty absolute to me.

http://biblehub.com/mark/10-21.htm

http://youtu.be/5mLOUWl-L-s

I know the other common comeback for theist is the, "you're reading it out of context" one. But that is the case here. Jesus told that one man HE was lacking one thing. Then after the guy got sad and left, Jesus used hyperbole to illustrate that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man into gods kingdom. Even his followers asked, who can possibly be saved? And Jesus went on to say that any sacrificed in this life will be greatly rewarded. So the lesson that is made in this example is that its not just about keeping the commandments as this man did (Mark 10:20) but it is also not being beholden to worldly possessions. And I do believe this gives me a practical lesson. God or no god, I never want to have a single possession in this life that is not worth giving up. And even if Jesus is completely made up, I can read this account and reflect on the fact that this guy chose stuff over life. Well, the one life i know I have, I am living. And I don't want to choose stuff over life now or ever.

Just remember that atheists are equally capable of having cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. Please don't assume I don't want to hear your counter points. You're definitely one of the easier people to chat with. I am just going to be told why or why not I hold certain beliefs still or ever

[robvalue]

Sure, I'm glad you find it useful to you. I wasn't trying to tell you anything, just saying what I suspect might be the case. If you tell me it's not, then that's good enough for me. I was very clear to own it as my opinion of what might be happening, in case you weren't aware you were doing it. I apologize if you didn't like my approach.

Of course, inspiration can be found anywhere, even in fiction.

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

Correct.  I'm classifying this as a response to the wager.

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

You are dodging the point entirely.  I'm saying that giving all you have to the poor will not lower your chances of salvation but can possibly help them, therefore by the logic of the wager it is compulsory.

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.

I cannot discern the point you are trying to make.

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.

I am not sure how this is relevant to the discussion.  Again, if a certain action does not lower your chances of winning but might increase them, then performing the action is a required part of any optimal strategy.

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.

According to me?  Do you contest that point?

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.

Correct.

Unless they were not christian, I am hindering their salvation if I have this singular thinking.

No you aren't.  If they're Christian, they can give it away to other people.

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.

So what should I do then, just ignore the parts I don't like and impose the parts that I do like on other people?