This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Just got back from bible study where we happened to discuss a similar story that makes it obvious Jesus here was yanking the guys chain and having a laugh with his buddies. "All these I have kept" is obviously not true - the dude tried to tell God to His face that he had never told a fib or disrespected his parents. So Jesus tells him "well if you're so perfect, drop everything and come along with me." Jesus is calling his bluff.
"Easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" is a joke. It's funny. Jesus is pretty clearly saying "rich people tend to be so consumed by their wealth they have no room in their heart for Me."
One of the things we discussed in fellowship this morning was the story of Zacchaeus (https://www.bibleref.com/Luke/19/Luke-chapter-19.html), a rich tax collector who told Jesus he had given away half his possessions to the poor. Jesus told him he was good to go, clear for takeoff. So obviously the camel thing was a joke.
Do you understand how, to somebody who is not a Christian and who is not invested in believing in the most favorable possible interpretation of your faith, this just seems like extra-special pleading? Surely there are a great many things which Jesus is recorded has having said which you consider deeply profound insights and statements of Jesus’ - and, by extension, God’s - true beliefs. Why, then, should we take seriously your contention that this particular statement - one which just happens to present an extremely inconvenient dilemma for your other non-religious philosophical and material commitments if taken literally and seriously - is just obviously a joke and Jesus didn’t really mean it, unlike all the other stuff he said that you agree with?
Sure, I understand completely. I used to be a fairly militant atheist and used to sometimes bring up the camel quip myself.
That said, I'm not interested in 'the most favorable possible interpretation' of the scriptures, I'm interested in using my mind to test and discern what interpretation is most pleasing to God (Romans 12:2).
Funny enough, not really. The first time I sat down and really read the gospels, most of the stuff was kind of nod along, "yeah that makes sense," but there's no earth-shattering revelations on the surface level. You have to study for those insights.
This is the question I just answered, tho. You're never going to understand the gestalt of a man/God's philosophy from isolating a single sentence. You have to look at all the parts in conjunction to get a sense of the whole. In this case, Jesus spoke more than once about rich people and getting into heaven. Yes, he did say the camel thing. He also told Zacchaeus - another rich guy - that he was going to heaven. Therefore, since it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of the needle, but demonstrably possible for a rich guy (Zacchaeus) to get into heaven, Jesus was obviously not being literal or completely serious when he said the camel thing.
And again let's remember the context in which he said it: He had just called out some rich poser. The guy was skulking away with his tail between his legs. "Then Jesus said to his disciples" aka he turned away from the crowd to make an aside to his buddies (Matthew 19:23). Sometimes when people say things to their friends that are not completely serious, it is called a joke.
Finally let's look at the disciple's response: "The disciples were astounded. “Then who in the world can be saved?” they asked." Clearly they did not get the joke. But Jesus lets them off the hook, "look[ing] at them intently and say[ing], "Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But with God everything is possible.” Clarifying that 1) He was not being literal about the camel thing 2) rich people can indeed go to heaven 3) He had a playful sense of humor.
Okay, but there are tons of examples of Jesus telling those same people that he is God incarnate, that eternal salvation is only possible through following him and taking seriously his commandments and proclamations. Given this, don’t you think that if he really had been God incarnate and really was intent on leading his followers to salvation, he would have, I dunno, been a bit more responsible about speaking clearly and not making muddled and seemingly-contradictory statements?
Joking around and making statements which seem to be literal imprecations about the correct way to live - with, again, the stakes having previously been established as whether or not you will receive eternal salvation, or suffer eternally - but which are actually jokes, or flippant statements, or intentional obfuscations… this seems much more like the behavior of a normal mortal human man, a charismatic but narcissistic cult leader with both the standard human failings and additionally the failure modes particular to that specific personality type.
All true
This is an excellent question. The short answer is yes, the longer answer is not only is this common for basically everyone to think today, Christian or otherwise, but that it was common when Jesus was walking around doing His thing. Bugged the shit out of people, especially all his friends, that he wouldn't just give a straight answer.
But the even longer answer is that He actually did both, and he explained why he usually spoke in parables. He did sometimes give straight answers (in fact in the example that started this conversation about the rich guy and the camel thing, Jesus answered his questions about what to do). And one of the last things he did (at supper) was to just lay it out plain: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:34)
As far as why he wasn't usually more clear about everything, it was so "they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven." (Mark 4:12) "They" being "us" in that sentence, as in, he didn't want to make it too easy for us or we'd just go along and our 'belief' wouldn't have much if any value.
Remember that for thousands of years and many generations God tried the whole "talking man in the sky" thing - often explicitly telling people "do not do that or I will smite you" and they'd fuckin do it anyway every single time! Speaking clearly had, historically, limited value in teaching things or getting people to think about them. I'll say again that we are (now) called to use our minds to think through and discern what's actually true (Romans 12:2) and for me, this sequence (God tried just telling people -> didn't work -> Jesus tried asking us to think for ourselves instead) tracks.
Yeah that's a perfectly fair point, but that's Jesus for ya. He could be snippy (called his best friend Satan when he got upset at the thought of him dying lol Matthew 16:23). He had a temper ("I come not to bring peace..." Matthew 10:34). He could be jealous (“Anyone who loves their father/mother/son/daughter more than me is not worthy of me" Matthew 10:37). He got nervous (Luke 22:44). He got sad ("Jesus wept." John 11:35). He loved his friends (John 15:13). He loved his mama (John 19:25). He was both human and divine.
One of the universe's greatest mysteries, maybe the greatest, because Christ already existed at the moment of creation (Let us make man in our image, after our likeness Genesis 1:26)
It’s only a mystery if you decide, based on faith, to accept the divinity of Christ, based on factors other than his behavior and statements. Otherwise it’s not mysterious at all: he acted like a normal human man because he was a normal human man.
I’m happy to admit there’s been nothing in my life that defied the observable laws of the universe to suggest the existence of any divinity. That is, if we exclude physically-possible-but-miraculous ‘everyone in that car should have been dead’ type of things, yeah I completely see your point.
But I’ve come around to thinking it is decidedly more likely that some unobservable spiritual forces exist and that Jews somehow play an important role, than it is that they’ve been doing their thing all this time because of literacy and nepotism. It’s not all just one big coincidence.
Okay, I too have come to believe that unobservable spiritual forces probably do exist. I have no idea how you get from that conclusion to “Yeshua Ben Nazareth, a 1st-century Galilean carpenter and mystic, was the literal incarnation of those spiritual forces, and therefore it is very important that I analyze his teachings and model my own life after those teachings to the best of my ability.” There is a whole world of other possible religions to believe in - including any of the various extant strains of Judaism, if you’re so convinced that the Jewish people specifically have some particular connection with, or part in, this spiritual realm!
A lot of people a lot smarter than me have written libraries full of books on this exact topic, but I'll give my best shot at a short answer. The story has verisimilitude. Maybe not every detail, but taken as a whole.
I do plenty of this, I just call it the Old Testament. And in terms of 'all religions are equally true - that is to say - equally false' it's just not very compelling to me because it means declaring myself to be more clever than virtually every single one of my ancestors for more than a thousand years. If Christianity is just a stupid hoax, then I have to reject my entire cultural history as stupid and my entire ancestry as a bunch of suckers. This was a source of consternation for me actually as an atheist who liked the West
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think the response above is a particularly good way of phrasing things, but a verse was presented and a claim was made that the verse is a general rule. He provided another verse that contradicts that supposed general rule. Nothing in the text of the first verse actually establishes a general rule, the existence of such a rule is an inference, and the second verse shows that the inference is false.
Maybe the text is completely contradictory, and it's all gobbledegook. Maybe it's actually a bit more complex, and grabbing single sentences out of a massive text loses important context. What it isn't, is true that Jesus taught, or Christians believe, that material wealth precludes salvation. That is a misconception fostered by people looking for easy dismissals.
For the record, I do not think Jesus is joking in that passage. What that guy actually needed to do was give everything away and follow Jesus. That was the thing he was not willing to do.
I love my wife and would do anything for her. I do not actually have to do everything for her, but I am willing to do whatever she needs me to do. That commitment is made without limit, and yet I can continue to live a life that is, in many ways, still mine, so long as it does not conflict with my commitment to her. What I cannot do is to put some thing before that commitment, choose some other thing over her should a conflict arise. Zaccheus' money doesn't come between him and God; he voluntarily pays back those he's wronged and gives to the poor because he wants to do the right thing, and Jesus approves. The Rich Young Ruler wants to be seen as righteous, but his money is more precious to him than actually being righteous, and that's why he goes away. There's numerous other examples throughout the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament that drive the point home, but this would require actually reading the thing or listening seriously to someone who has, and who has time for that, when one can mine pull-quotes out of context for a political agenda?
I actually agree with you here. I think making it a joke, is probably tonally not in line with how Jesus speaks. But likewise it isn't a global stricture. Some rich people can get into Heaven, some can't. I think that is the most consistent reading.
But some Christians apparently believe He was joking, and some believe He meant that all rich people were barred from Heaven. Can people with all three interpretations all still be Christian? Probably I'd imagine.
(also directed to /u/fcfromscc) perhaps I could've been more clear - yes Jesus was actually seriously telling that guy to give up his worldly possessions and follow Him. He was calling the rich guy's bluff that he was leading a spotless moral life. Obviously rich guy loved his money more than he loved Jesus.
The joke came afterward, after the fella was retreating in shame from being called out, and it was directed at the disciples at the expense of the rich guy. It's a hyperbolic put down, like 'this fucking guy - it'd be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.' Imagining a camel trying to get through the eye of a needle is inherently humorous.
Regardless, it is not a salvation issue, unless you happen to be a rich person who believes He meant all rich people were barred lol Then you might be in trouble
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link