An encounter filmed during the Occupy LA events; the man viewing the proceedings expresses his doubt that "anyone great" ever came out of the 99 percent.
Jesus did not have that information until he was baptized at 30 years of age. He was raised by poor parents who could not afford the standard offering and had to give birds. And his entire adult life he owned nothing more than the clothes on his back...
In his defense, HIS definition of 'great' fits his world; where a life has to be won and you do that by gathering more points than others. I doubt he has ever met any of the great people I have and I would bet the only people that would step in the way of a bullet for him are paid to do so. In MY game, he is losing - I think that most of those at the top know they are losing, too but they think the answer is to amass more of the same 'wealth' they already have. Nixon was quoted, saying he was never satisfied with success. Sad, really.
Here's a generalization: The vast (vast) majority of America's 1% (or 10%, or 20%) would adamantly identify themselves as Christian. And not 1% of that 1% has done what their lord and savior has asked of them- namely, give up all their worldly goods to follow him.
Person unwilling to identify themselves for reasons unknown--
It's not a requirement of the 1% to be Christian- but if you are going to call yourself a Christian (esp if you're going to BOAST about being a Christian- as many are prone to do nowadays), yes, I would think it a requirement (at the very least) to do the one, most basic thing that your leader asked of you... if you are, in fact, going to "follow' him.
Otherwise, choose a less demanding religion where you can keep all the money you want, made any way you want- and still think of yourself as one hell of a righteous guy.
That was a one-time offer to a specific man that could have been one of his hand chosen apostles. He was told that because it was the one thing holding him back. Another man might have been able to put all his holdings in someone else's care and followed Jesus. In no way, shape or form is that a requirement of a Christian...
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." -JC
That was part of the same conversation- and it doesn't get any more damning, or universal than that.
No, it is certainly not a requirement for anyone who wants to call themselves "Christian," it's only a requirement for those who actually choose to follow his teachings.
Hmm, not feeling the "following his teachings" part of the statement. And maybe the underlying sentiment. Maybe it's accurate to say a rich person would shed their wealth to eliminate any possible causes for diminishing their faith.
Jesus was giving a warning, not an edict. In the very next verses 25,26 his disciples expressed their surprise and thoughts of how nearly impossible it is to be saved, but Jesus says "with God, all things are possible."
1 Tim 6:9,10 refer to the root of the problem: the LOVE of that money.
1 Tim 6:17 even refers specifically to Christians who are rich. But it does not say they should give their wealth away.
There is no evidence early Christians were ever required to give their wealth away. In fact 2 Cor 8:14 makes specific mention to why it was practical for some Christians to have "surplus".
To follow Jesus encompasses a few things: avoiding a short list of explicitly forbidden things (stuff sacrificed to idols, consuming blood, fornication), and living your life by basic principles (love God with whole heart, and love your neighbor). All which is typified by his life and example.
So riches would not be forbidden, in this case riches could diminish loving God with your whole heart because you might love and start to depend on your temporary riches.
And as you may notice, most people who claim the title "Christian" do not even start to follow Jesus teachings (war is bad, mmkay. That's killing your neighbors, some of them also so-called "Christian"). So, no argument there. :)
off topic but I just don't recall seeing 20 comments on a post before, oooh wee touched a nerve here eh? Sad that this man's idea of what success is appears to be so skewed.
Amazing. Clearly being filthy rich doesn't require possession of an intellect.
ReplyDeleteWow. What an idiot. My guess is that at least 99% of the "greats" have come out of the 99%.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the Beatles, there were Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan, Bill Gates, Barack Obama, William Shakespeare, etc.
Who do we have from the 1%? Members of royalty and George W. Bush? I'm sure there are more, but they don't come to mind as quickly...
Here he is:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbre.com/USA/US/CA/Beverly+Hills/pprofile/jimkruse.htm
Jesus doesn't count, he knew he was the Son of God. You can't get more 1% than that.
ReplyDeleteJesus did not have that information until he was baptized at 30 years of age. He was raised by poor parents who could not afford the standard offering and had to give birds. And his entire adult life he owned nothing more than the clothes on his back...
ReplyDeleteI'd say that is not the top 1%.
"Clearly being filthy rich doesn't require possession of an intellect." You said it BJN.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I have really noticed is that an abundance of money does not buy you a good sense of fashion.
ReplyDeleteAnd Steve Jobs. I bet that arrogant idiot uses Apple products every day of the week.
ReplyDeleteIn his defense, HIS definition of 'great' fits his world; where a life has to be won and you do that by gathering more points than others.
ReplyDeleteI doubt he has ever met any of the great people I have and I would bet the only people that would step in the way of a bullet for him are paid to do so.
In MY game, he is losing - I think that most of those at the top know they are losing, too but they think the answer is to amass more of the same 'wealth' they already have. Nixon was quoted, saying he was never satisfied with success.
Sad, really.
Define Irony:
ReplyDeleteA blog post entitled with a generalization criticizing a man for his generalization.
Unsurprisingly, both are wrong.
You're absolutely correct, Bret. My mistake.
ReplyDeleteI changed the title.
Here's a generalization: The vast (vast) majority of America's 1% (or 10%, or 20%) would adamantly identify themselves as Christian. And not 1% of that 1% has done what their lord and savior has asked of them- namely, give up all their worldly goods to follow him.
ReplyDeleteIsn't he on 30 Rock?
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to come out of the 99% and join the 1 % for sure.
ReplyDeleteUh, Stan B, where exactly is that a requirement?
ReplyDeletePerson unwilling to identify themselves for reasons unknown--
ReplyDeleteIt's not a requirement of the 1% to be Christian- but if you are going to call yourself a Christian (esp if you're going to BOAST about being a Christian- as many are prone to do nowadays), yes, I would think it a requirement (at the very least) to do the one, most basic thing that your leader asked of you... if you are, in fact, going to "follow' him.
Otherwise, choose a less demanding religion where you can keep all the money you want, made any way you want- and still think of yourself as one hell of a righteous guy.
I think you may be confused.
ReplyDeleteThat was a one-time offer to a specific man that could have been one of his hand chosen apostles. He was told that because it was the one thing holding him back. Another man might have been able to put all his holdings in someone else's care and followed Jesus. In no way, shape or form is that a requirement of a Christian...
Anonymous By Any Other Name-
ReplyDelete"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." -JC
That was part of the same conversation- and it doesn't get any more damning, or universal than that.
No, it is certainly not a requirement for anyone who wants to call themselves "Christian," it's only a requirement for those who actually choose to follow his teachings.
Hmm, not feeling the "following his teachings" part of the statement. And maybe the underlying sentiment. Maybe it's accurate to say a rich person would shed their wealth to eliminate any possible causes for diminishing their faith.
ReplyDeleteJesus was giving a warning, not an edict. In the very next verses 25,26 his disciples expressed their surprise and thoughts of how nearly impossible it is to be saved, but Jesus says "with God, all things are possible."
1 Tim 6:9,10 refer to the root of the problem: the LOVE of that money.
1 Tim 6:17 even refers specifically to Christians who are rich. But it does not say they should give their wealth away.
There is no evidence early Christians were ever required to give their wealth away. In fact 2 Cor 8:14 makes specific mention to why it was practical for some Christians to have "surplus".
To follow Jesus encompasses a few things: avoiding a short list of explicitly forbidden things (stuff sacrificed to idols, consuming blood, fornication), and living your life by basic principles (love God with whole heart, and love your neighbor). All which is typified by his life and example.
So riches would not be forbidden, in this case riches could diminish loving God with your whole heart because you might love and start to depend on your temporary riches.
And as you may notice, most people who claim the title "Christian" do not even start to follow Jesus teachings (war is bad, mmkay. That's killing your neighbors, some of them also so-called "Christian"). So, no argument there. :)
Exactly, we all know Christians do far better following Christ's edicts (as opposed to his "warnings"), like- "Love your enemies..."
ReplyDeleteoff topic but I just don't recall seeing 20 comments on a post before, oooh wee touched a nerve here eh? Sad that this man's idea of what success is appears to be so skewed.
ReplyDelete