221–230 of 298 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But then he would no longer be rich, so this doesn't really change the metaphor.
One can be rich (have a lot of money) without loving money, or to the point of the gate explanation, relying on money instead of God.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of Christ's teaching is that rich or poor, no one is deserving. It's only by admitting one's sinfulness and inadequacy and turning from it to instead accept God's mercy and gift of Christ that anyone can be saved.
That seems to soften it a bit, in this story he’s saying that the rich particularly have an essentially insurmountable amount of sinfulness and inadequacy to overcome.
This goes along with another famous teaching of Jesus about money: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” (Matthew 6:24)
The rich generally have a master they are unwilling to give up. It is money. They think they are the master of their money, but their money is their master.
Yet by God's grace, He can even change the heart of the rich to love Him instead of being devoted to money. Praise God for that. It is indeed a miracle. As crazy as a camel going through the eye of a needle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a look around for this recently discovered book, but can't find references -- can you point me towards some please, it'd be fascinating to read the contents / context.
I can’t find anything either. Q is probably an aggregate of the best creative free form half truth conspiracy writings that one was able to gather from various internet sources mixed with a garden variety of new age mystical belief and a dash of pure fn magic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
in english the pejorative term is 'cult', which often trips up second-language speakers from languages where it's the other way around
To help avoid future misunderstandings, which modern languages use "cult" without the usual negative implications?
For that matter, would you use "sect" in english and be confident it would not be seen as pejorative term? I feel it's all context dependent.
I also don't think looking through google translate with a single phrase is the right method to figure this out- for one thing I've heard the european languages are usually heavily based on legislature (eu legislature is published in all eu languages, so an excellent source of translations). In my experience google translate can be stilted and formal, so which implications and connotations a phrase or term has in different languages can definitely be literally "lost in translation".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn't the natural reading of the passage. The listeners express surprise when Jesus says "rich folks won't enter the kingdom of God". They then ask "well if not the rich, then who?" indicating that they think rich folks were the most likely to get in. If not them, then who? Jesus then says "no mortal person," explaining that only God makes it possible to enter the kingdom of heaven. He doesn't say poor people. H…
Then why does he single out the rich folks? It would make more sense in your interpretation to not include the "rich" and imply that any man entering heaven was impossible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems to soften it a bit, in this story he’s saying that the rich particularly have an essentially insurmountable amount of sinfulness and inadequacy to overcome.
Yes, Jesus is saying something particular about the rich here, but not that they are particularly sinful. Rather, they are particularly susceptible to trusting in their money and placing it above God (making an idol of it) which gets in the way of their being willing to follow Jesus and put their faith in Him. This goes along with another famous teaching of Jesus about money: “No one can serve two masters; for either…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like this direction. But the passage talks about the ease of doing so. I propose something like a wood chipper attached to a conveyor belt that runs through a giant needle and deposits the remains on the other side. You could use an excavator to lift the camel into the chipper just to make sure there’s almost zero effort involved In building such a device, you will have saved all of humanity, rich or poor from the…
Just make it easy: there is an obvious market gap. It should be highly profitable: the market segment is rich old gullible Christians. I can see 3 levels: 1: camel slurry as a service. An Australian company (you get paid to cull feral camels there - extra profit) - paid for at a dedicated website - with a personalized certificate mailed for completion. Easy. 2: personalized. You travel to the machine in a suitable co…
1. Switch to camel meat farming
2. Route all sewers through the eye of a giant needle en route to water treatment
3. Receive eternal blessings every morning if you took your fiber the previous evening
Sorry vegetarians and vegans, you’re still at risk. You’ll have to use messy camel slurries or just take your chances.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way I heard the "needle gate" interpretation is: 1. A camel normally is tall, covered in a tarp / saddle, and loads of baggage. 2. To get through the Needle Gate, a camel needs to take off all his baggage, saddle, and tarp, and then crawl through on his knees 3. So with a rich man: To get into heaven, he must take off all his worldly baggage (i.e., stop loving his wealth) and humble himself by crawling in on his…
But then he would no longer be rich, so this doesn't really change the metaphor.
So many in these comments (presumably wealthy or aspiring wealthy) seem desperate to assure themselves that wealth-hoarding is not inherently evil by His standards
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it was thought that being rich meant you were close to God. If the people they thought were closest to God could scarcely be saved, then how could anyone else be? So the thinking goes. It's an argument a fortiori. Of course Jesus' point was that the poor and sinners are much closer to the kingdom of God than the rich, hence their astonishment.
That isn't the natural reading of the passage. The listeners express surprise when Jesus says "rich folks won't enter the kingdom of God". They then ask "well if not the rich, then who?" indicating that they think rich folks were the most likely to get in. If not them, then who? Jesus then says "no mortal person," explaining that only God makes it possible to enter the kingdom of heaven. He doesn't say poor people. H…
> Jesus then says "no mortal person,"
Except this isn't what Jesus says. He says "With man 'it' is impossible." Jesus' response doesn't even make grammatical sense as a reply to "who can be saved?" because it isn't a reply to that. The question "Who can be saved?" was posed among the listeners to themselves, not to Christ:
> And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
Jesus' statement "with man it is impossible" is a continuation of the thought that it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven (so hard that it requires a miracle above what's required for a normal person). It's impossible with men that a camel should pass through the eye of a needle, but with God, it's possible (and thus possible for a rich man to be saved, though not easy).
It's not that there's anything good about poor people that gets them in; it's that rich people don't want in.
Any interpretation that makes it as easy for rich people to enter as it is for poor people is missing the clear meaning of the words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems to soften it a bit, in this story he’s saying that the rich particularly have an essentially insurmountable amount of sinfulness and inadequacy to overcome.
Yes, Jesus is saying something particular about the rich here, but not that they are particularly sinful. Rather, they are particularly susceptible to trusting in their money and placing it above God (making an idol of it) which gets in the way of their being willing to follow Jesus and put their faith in Him. This goes along with another famous teaching of Jesus about money: “No one can serve two masters; for either…
And so, in a very real sense, as you also note, there is nothing especially important about the rich man per se. The poor can lust just as much, if not more, for money than the rich, because the poor can more easily fantasize about and project hopes onto what they do not have; the rich man is more likely to have become disillusioned with his riches.