MAGA - the Truth

[ajax18]

You disagree that Christ taught to sell all possessions and give to the poor, rather than only 10%, as part of His higher law?

Perhaps I misunderstand what the juxtaposition of believing the Bible, and being a Christian is exactly.

One must be willing to sacrifice everything if called upon to do so by God, not by his spiritual brothers and sisters. I don't know any protestants who believe they have the right to tell other people how much and to who they must give their paycheck, except maybe Jersey Girl. Just because the majority of the people endorse robbery doesn't make it right, let alone the fact that this kind of policy has always led to economic scarcity and misery here on earth every time people have tried it.

[ajax18]

That company is what is wrong with the american economy and the lack of antitrust enforcement over the years.

Thank you!

[huckelberry]

Hey Steuss!

For what it's worth: Tithing is not a thing for Bible believing Christians. Tithing was an Old Testament thing (ancient Israel) - In practice, the other eleven tribes where to give 10% of their proceeds to the Levites. In return, the Levites were responsible for things related to the Temple as well as spiritual/priestly things. In short, tithing was for a specific people, at a specific time, and for a specific purpose.

Biblically speaking, Christians are commanded to be joyful givers (generous with their money/time and are commanded to help those less fortunate in many ways) but, even though some Christian pastors/churches today suggest tithing is a thing for Christians, it is not.

Good point. For Bible believing Christians, it's required to give up all of one's wealth and possessions, and not just 10%. At least if one hopes to be perfected in Christ and receive His treasures in heaven.

Christ and his higher laws were sure rascally. Can't even look at someone's booty-butt-cheeks without committing adultery. Old Testament times, I'd at least have to commit the actual deed. Then again, there's all that stoning to death stuff... so I guess it's kind of a give and take.

Doctor Steuss, I think you are distorting things for some special effect. If everyone gave everything away you would not have a functioning social system. Jesus did not tell everyone to give everything away. He invited one individual to do that. Through the centuries there have been people who understood that as a special invitation they actually took up. Best if taken if it becomes an example looking for things better than riches not to gain privilege in heaven.

I just returned from the store. At the store I saw a young women in fairly tight pants. I could not help but noticing and thinking that she had a very pretty rear end. Noticing that gave me no reason to imagine having her, that she is somehow available or that I have some sort of right to her. In short I do not think I was in the ball park of that adulterous lust. I did feel it appropriate to not stare.

I admit that that one statement in Matthew can be a puzzle. It really does not explain all possibilities and there are no further comments recorded to clarify. One can wonder what that really means for 20 year old horny unmarried folks. (Paul with some wisdom suggest they marry.) So I am forced to think. What I see is Jesus pointing a finger at how people can think of others without respect, to imagine a sort of privilege over others, to lust.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Here’s some more MAGA truth:

RFK was on Epstein’s flight logs, too. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... vs-maxwell

Pages 18, 27, and 45 for Trump.

https://www.dailykos.com/history/user/CajsaLilliehook

Link above is a Republican Sexual Predators, Abusers, and Enablers list: A 53-part series

- Doc

[ajax18]

I just returned from the store. At the store I saw a young women in fairly tight pants. I could not help but noticing and thinking that she had a very pretty rear end. Noticing that gave me no reason to imagine having her, that she is somehow available or that I have some sort of right to her. In short I do not think I was in the ball park of that adulterous lust. I did feel it appropriate to not stare.

If you don't look once, you're not a man. If you look twice, you're not a missionary.

I admit that that one statement in Matthew can be a puzzle. It really does not explain all possibilities and there are no further comments recorded to clarify. One can wonder what that really means for 20 year old horny unmarried folks. (Paul with some wisdom suggest they marry) So I am forced to think. What I see is Jesus pointing a finger at how people can think of others without respect, to imagine a sort of privilege over others, to lust.

We do have to become spiritually minded if we want to have the spirit of God present with us or be worthy to be in God's presence someday. What was once a challenge for me no longer is since my reactivation and realization that keeping God's commandments is in my own best interest and ultimately for my own happiness. The Book of Mormon says to bridle your passions. I can honestly say that if I have the spirit of God with me, I'm still happy even when my needs aren't met. Nothing is worth losing the spirit in my life.

[huckelberry]

Ajax, thanks for responding to my comment in the spirit it was intended. I am not terribly strict on counting the number of glances but a missionary is in a special situation which is supposed to avoid romantic engagement.

[Doctor Steuss]

Doctor Steuss, I think you are distorting things for some special effect.

Hi Huckelberry. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on this. I always appreciate your insights. Oh, I'm definitely being a bit of a turd, but I don't believe I'm distorting things.

If everyone gave everything away you would not have a functioning social system.

Jesus didn’t ask everyone to give away everything. He never demanded fealty from those who did not claim to want to follow Him, or have faith in His promises. His teachings and commands were for those who believed in Him. It was always an invitation to follow for the few, never a demand to fall in line for the many. That said, the disruption of social systems was a key component of His teachings. Not just social systems, but even familial systems and structures.

Jesus did not tell everyone to give everything away. He invited one individual to do that.

Perhaps. That’s certainly one way of interpreting the teaching. If we go that route though, of “Jesus was only speaking to this one person, or this one group, or this one crowd,” how many teachings are we really left with?

I just returned from the store. At the store I saw a young women in fairly tight pants. I could not help but noticing and thinking that she had a very pretty rear end. Noticing that gave me no reason to imagine having her, that she is somehow available or that I have some sort of right to her. In short I do not think I was in the ball park of that adulterous lust. I did feel it appropriate to not stare.

I admit that that one statement in Matthew can be a puzzle. It really does not explain all possibilities and there are no further comments recorded to clarify. One can wonder what that really means for 20 year old horny unmarried folks. (Paul with some wisdom suggest they marry.) So I am forced to think. What I see is Jesus pointing a finger at how people can think of others without respect, to imagine a sort of privilege over others, to lust.

One of the interesting things about Paul’s sexual aesthetic (and one that Jesus echoes somewhat elsewhere), compared to how marriage is viewed within most Christian communities now, is that marriage was for the weak. It was for those who couldn’t cut it. Those who couldn't remain perfectly chaste, and not have lustful eyes, etc. It was a way to have an outlet, that wasn’t “sinning.” Of course with Paul, there was the secondary aspect that bringing children into the world, when it was believed to end soon, wasn't particularly responsible.

Jesus’ way is nearly impossible -- at least for the vast majority. His teachings are extreme and demanding. There is no “go purify the land by making a sacrifice to remove the metaphysical stain of your sins” -- instead it’s “this is what you need to do to never have a metaphysical stain again.” He provided a roadmap to be like Him. I think that’s ultimately the point. Not only to disrupt the established systems, but more-so to force introspection on just how far we inevitably fall short, and must rely on Him. Conversely though, I think too often people see how it would be impossible for them, and decide that means that they shouldn't even try to get close.

Very few can give up everything they have. Very few can live their life, with only the basic necessities for them and their families, while giving all excess to the poor and needy. Very few can devote every waking hour to prayer in their hearts. The seeming impossibility of it, and the way in which it would unravel society isn’t some kind of fluke in the teachings, but is a key component, in my opinion.

Following Jesus is supposed to be disruptive to the status quo.

[I apologize for the “believing” language above, as I imagine you know I’m an agnostic (hopeful… but faith eludes). It’s used to help prevent the drudgery of “I think it could mean,” “I think it teaches,” “from a believing perspective, I think it would entail,” etc.]


Edited to add (a few hours later, lol):
I've been thinking of the above, in the context of "my yoke is easy..." I think Jesus was indicating that for those who have a full and pure belief, and have unwavering faith (of the pistis variety) -- for those, giving up everything, eschewing the world, and following Him is easy. It's only when one's heart is still tied to the world (or "society" as the case may be), family, belongings, money, security, etc., that the burden isn't light and seems impossible.

[canpakes]

Perhaps.

Or it could be that mega oligopolist Walmart doesn't want the populist wave to gain ground. Populism "dangerously" leads to more antitrust litigation. Even so, prices coming down is always a welcome outcome to whatever causes it. Let's see what happens next. Will there be pressure on wages now? Will the more important disposable income number go down as well? Rising wages while prices lower rarely happens.

Can’t we just blame it all on Obama?

[huckelberry]

Doctor Struess, thank you for thoughtful reply. It is clear you are looking at genuine questions and observation not just trying to be difficult. You do pose a difficult question though.

I only copied your summary statement as your post is long and can be read in the original above.

Very few can give up everything they have. Very few can live their life, with only the basic necessities for them and their families, while giving all excess to the poor and needy. Very few can devote every waking hour to prayer in their hearts. The seeming impossibility of it, and the way in which it would unravel society isn’t some kind of fluke in the teachings, but is a key component, in my opinion.

Following Jesus is supposed to be disruptive to the status quo.

Yes ,it is clear Jesus intended to be disruptive. But to what end? chaos? A society honoring God and loving fellow man? A magic kingdom where a special few sit around celibate and being fed by God?

I can look at some statements that could suggest the third of those options. I think most strongly suggest the second.

Jesus says people cannot serve God and Mammon. Jesus did not go around asking fealty to Jesus he pointed to how people should behave, knew they should behave but slipped into avoiding that. I think Jesus called some to be a special vanguard but intended to change the world.

But the whole business of a second coming about to happen creates some confusion. Paul's marriage comments are about the confusion of the times. He in general dislikes the strong and favors the weak . He advises sex for the married and caution to the unmarried because of troubles expected. There is some popularity for celibacy as a special spiritual strength in the general society of the time. Paul is being a bit noncommittal about that aspiration.

One could observe that it appears , and strongly, that Jesus was wrong about the imminent second coming.

Bart Ehrman feels sure Jesus expected an end of the natural fallen world to happen resulting in some sort of paradise. Nicholas Thomas Wright thinks Jesus was using cultural categories he and people around him knew and then molding them to new meanings. These in the end became his death resurrection and a new direction for people. I read Mr. Wright rather large book on this thesis and found it attractive, making sense out of a lot Jesus said, but still rather strained in relation to specifics. In my mind I find New Testament Wrights view makes more sense if I consider the possibility that Jesus was exploring the possibilities of what his message meant without having a full picture. It developed over time.

Many years ago I read Albert Schweitzer 's Quest for Historical Jesus and was impressed by the honesty of his study and the clarity of seeing that the coming and near kingdom of heaven was the heart of what Jesus was saying and was about. The summary conclusion being something like: Jesus followed his path without flinching and was broken on the wheel of reality. Despite being broken he released a force for change into the world which is still working its way.

Kind of a harsh picture people like to blur that picture a bit for softer edges. But it is what it is.

Sometimes I think people expecting and excited for Jesus to return, come here soon, hope he will protect their way of life, insure their privilege is protected, and punish others. Considering his words, maybe not quite that.

Note, Mr. Wright is normally referred to with two initials that auto correct thinks are New Testament which is not part of his name. I had to look up his full name for correction.

[Doctor Steuss]

Thank you Huckleberry again, for taking time to share your thoughts (and help me in refining my own).

First and foremost, you remind me how I've neglected reading Wright. I've only read one of his books, and it was so long ago, I don't even remember the name. I just remember it was an Eerdman offering, and was on Paul.
 

Yes ,it is clear Jesus intended to be disruptive. But to what end? chaos? A society honoring God and loving fellow man? A magic kingdom where a special few sit around celibate and being fed by God?

I hope you'll indulge me in one of my speculative views (particularly as it likely paints Jesus as more of a revolutionary than as deity leading mankind to heaven). I think part of the disruption was to shift the power balance from Roman rule, and also eschew whatever benefits of being a part of the empire brought (luxuries, comforts, security, etc.) that might influence allegiances. I recall reading a speculative article many moons ago that the teachings about "turning the other cheek," and carrying a pack twice as far were ultimately acts of civil disobedience against Roman norms and law. Going from memory, so take that with a very large grain of salt. Of course, the "render unto Caeser" might throw a wrench in this.

Ultimately, in my own personal view, I think the disruption to the status quo was meant to do away with a system (religious, economic, and political) that almost mandated that some suffer in order for others to rise to positions of prominence. He was a champion of the marginalized, the poor, the "least of these." The common thread that I find is a Teacher who is trying to alleviate suffering -- not just by trying to physically and spiritually heal individuals, but also heal the very society which caused the pain and suffering in the first place. A society where a pure love leaves no room for judgement, hoarding, suffering, etc.

At least that's the Jesus I have found within the New Testament. I know that my own personal views likely largely color that image. It's hard to tell though (for me, that is) if that disruption was with an eye to the overall future, or with an eye to what was perceived to be a near eminent end.