Jesus was a Liberal Hippie

How many times do I have to answer it for you? this will be like the 4th time but I'll repeat it again. Patience is a virtue but you are taxing my virtue! His riches were the source of his particular sin that prevented him from following Jesus. The man thought he was righteous and had observed the law. His greed was his particular sin. In Mark chapt 10 it clarifies an interesting detail...Jesus said: 'sell all you have...take up the cross and follow me.' The man's sin was his riches were more important than following Christ. That's why Jesus told him to get rid of the source of his sin which is the point here not riches.Nicodemus, the other rich man who asked Jesus did not have the same sin, he believed Jesus was from God but needed to be reborn spiritually John chapter 3.Is it sinking through the layers yet Ringo? And how do I cite lines from your posts like you guys do? I could ream you good on several smaller points if I could do that!Edited by ReformedRob, : left out a word and quote marks

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

thanks admin!

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

But neo cons are not the same as 'conservative'. A quick look around for the history of neo-cons belies their highly left wing background. Many of the original neo-cons were from the left/far left. As Irving Kristol said: neo con policy is one of assuming the worst in humanity (whereas liberal is assuming the best). Leo Strauss was a fan of Machiavelli, and particularly enjoyed the quote: As such, neo-cons are highly militaristic. Might makes right mentality. Appeasment is dangerous and leads to holocaust type affairs, talking is pointless.As such, neo-cons are can be described as no mercy liberals, refusing to listen to the concerns of others (unilateral action).I'm not sure that really describes Jesus at all, but that's by the by.Jesus was about loving one another and pacifism. He was against trading on religious grounds, for taxes, against rich men (not money per se I believe, but he appreciated that money can turn a man from God so very very easily). He forgave those that trespassed against him. He was totally cool with bumming around (after all the lillies don't have jobs), and being naked (the birds don't wear clothes).Slightly tongue in cheek I know, but Jesus was as close to a liberal hippie as one is likely to find. If, of course, he really did come with a sword I'd be willing to agree with the neo-con outlook but since Jesus never really discussed foriegn policy I don't think it is fair to label him as a neo-con.

Render unto Ringo that which is Ringo's. You do keep saying that but that isn't an answer to the question. I don't see that in the text at all.What must be done is sharing with the poor. The result of that deed is letting go of greed, letting go of sin (and the poor like it too).Q: Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?A: If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.The question refers to what must be done - i.e. it is a physical matter, not a spiritual one.
And the answer also refers to what must be done. There's a "Peek" button in the lower right hand corner of every post that will show you how a lot of things are done. For quotes, just enclose "qs=Ringo" in square brackets instead of quotes, then put "/qs" (in square brackets) at the end of your cut/paste. So simple even Ringo can do it. Edited by Ringo, : Capitalism.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That's why I said neo-con OF HIS DAY. By the definition of what he was doing, returning the teachings to the original intent he was a neo-con again OF HIS DAY!He did not advocate the rich paying taxes...you're strip quoting the render unto caesar what is caesars quote without understanding it.As well: Ok then Jesus said in Matthew 10:34: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth, I did not come to bring peace but a sword"And later to the Apostles he told them that when he was not with them to carry a sword and in Romans 13:4 the govt is given the power of the sword.your turn

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

Every time we discuss why the rich man was told to divest his wealth to gain heaven you say it must be done (the divestiture) but leave out the example with Nicodemus when divestiture of wealth is not a prerequisite to heaven. You cant pick and choose the examples in the Bible you like and dislike that's bias.Next time you cite me in your post cite the whole relevant portion not just one you like to respond to.

That's just the point though: We have to look at the example where it was a prerequisite.If it wasn't a prerequisite for Nicodemus, fine. Maybe Nicodemus didn't put his riches ahead of following Jesus. Maybe he had willingly given enough to the poor to meet Jesus' standard. (We'll see more about that if we ever get to Matthew 25.)But you can't just handwave away the fact that even one rich man could not have eternal life unless he divested himself of his riches. Add to that the whole "eye of the needle" thing, and it becomes pretty clear that riches are an obstacle to entering heaven.And I'll emphasize again: It was the physical act of selling and giving that Jesus specified - not a word about the rich man's spiritual condition. When I cite you, it's only intended as a landmark, so that you (and others) can tell what I'm responding to. I don't quotemine you with the intention of tripping you up. You're quite capable of doing that yourself.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I appreciate he was returning the teachings to the original intent, but I don't think that the neo-cons are doing that with conservatism. I never said anything about the rich paying taxes I just said

quote:

---

[Jesus was] for taxes

---

Naturally he was for the rich paying taxes but I don't think he discriminated particularly - the poor also should pay taxes. I know, that was one of the reasons I said what I said. The thing I said was

quote:

---

If, of course, he really did come with a sword

---

I don't remember Jesus going anywhere with an actual sword, but only wielding a metaphorical one...unless you think He walked around with a shortsword? You refer to Jesus' last night when he was warning of the hard times that would come? What about Jesus' rebukes at the use of those swords, and the warning of the fate of those that would take the sword? It doesn't sound convincing to me that Jesus was pro-unilateral violence to solve the world's ills.

On the question of Jesus being a liberal hippie and saying that the rich man example is a teaching of Jesus to divest oneself of wealth is just plain false and we have to take both examples not just one you like it's that simple. If Jesus taught the general principle to divest oneself of wealth he would have told Nicodemus to do so Not a word about his spiritual condition? then why the admonition in Mark 10: "...and come, take up the cross, and follow Me"? Yes lets add that to answer your question again from Mark 10 verse 24: "Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God. 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."The young man was trusing in riches, Nicodemus was not. What kept the young rich man out was commonly know as sin! Riches are inherently not sin just as food or sex is not sin but they can be. So the young man needed to repent of his sin, his trust in riches, AND take up the cross and follow Jesus to enter the kingdom if Heaven. The will not gain heaven...that's the trust in riches that cant gain heaven you know the 'eye of the needle thing' you alluded to. Plus Eph 2:8-9 "You are saved by grace through faith, which is the gift of God. Not by works lest any man should boast." The physical act of selling and giving is a work...the young mans trust in riches was his sin. You cant just look at one verse as if it is a totality of teaching. You must look at all the applicable verses to gain valid and responsible understanding.Good Luck I'll be praying for you!

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

Modulus,One quick point I misread your statement and thought it read without the comma... meaning jesus was for taxes against rich men. My mistake and my apology.But Jesus was not against rich men. As Ringo and I have discussed as nauseum the young rich man was told to divest his wealth because he trusted in riches to gain entrance to heaven, Mark 10;17-25 but Nicodemus, a rich man in John Chapter 3 is told to be born again to enter heaven and no mention of his riches...so Jesus is not against rich men.And I do not equate Jesus with Modern Neo-Cons but as I said by the definition he was one for his day...not our day so saying: doesnt really apply to what I am saying. I am using terminology to dismiss the common hippie liberal myth about him that this thread is about.And as for the Sword why did you not respond the the civil govt's rt to the sword of Romans 13:4? Read the passage it is pretty much unilateral
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists God...For he is Gods minister to you for good. but if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."
Doesnt sound very liberal hippie to me!
I think I like Cartman's views on hippies!

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

I didn't say it was a "general" principle. I said it was a significant principle.There is a general principle:

quote:

---

Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

---

It would appear that Nicodemus was the exception rather than the rule. The "cross" is a burden, of course, not a literal torture/execution device. What would be burdensome to a rich man? Living without riches, maybe?Bear in mind also that the bulk of Mark 10 talks about selling one's riches and rich men not entering heaven. Sounds very material and non-spiritual to me. Excess of food or sex is a sin. So is excess of money. You contradict Jesus:

quote:

---

Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Mat 25:35 For I was hungry, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Mat 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

---

Again, not a word about one's spiritual condition, only one's actions. Note the tense of your quote: You are saved by grace. But what will get you into heaven - by Jesus' words, not just Paul's - is feeding the hungry, etc.It isn't the works that save you, but it is doing the works that indicates that you have accepted the gift of salvation. Exactly. And you keep ignoring the verses that say rich men don't get to heaven.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

We're getting close to agreement here except There arent any...there is the one I already cited in Mark that said those who trust in riches cannot get into heaven...rich men and those who trust in riches to enter heaven are different things.but at last we agree! AMEN BROTHER!

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

Exactly. And none of the verses says anything about "trusting in riches". They all say "rich man".The state of being rich is the constraint.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Wrongo Ringo!Mark 10:24 (which I already cited but you must not have read) "...Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God!"Gotcha!Is it sinking through the layers yet?

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

Back up a little further:

quote:

---

Mar 10:23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

---

Mark leaves you a tiny loophole: If you can convince God that you didn't "trust" in your riches, you might make it into heaven.But to Matthew and Luke, that loophole must be about as big as the eye of a needle, or they would have mentioned it too.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC