Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I believe he was telling them to get their priorities straight.  I
    don't think he was excluding rich people from inheriting eternal life.
    
    -Jack

    And you don't think you are watering it down at all?
    
    Richard
    

    See the story of the rich fool.  Remember his motto, "Eat, drink, and
    be merry, for tomorrow we die!"  Yet David in all his splendor was
    considered a man after God's own heart.  
    
    So we have two rich men with two different sets of priorities.  It
    isn't so much watering down as it is a generic short answer to a
    complex question.
    
    -Jack

From the commentary on Luke by the Faculty of Theology at the University
of Navarre:

 24-26. The image of the camel and the eye of a needle is exaggeration for
 the sake of effect to show how enormously difficult it is for a rich man
 attached to his riches to enter the Kingdom of heaven.

  "Earthly goods are not bad, but they are debased when man sets them up as
  idols, when he adores them.  They are ennobled when they are converted into
  instruments for good, for just and charitable Christian undertakings.  We
  cannot seek after material goods as if they were a treasure. ... Our
  treasure is Christ and all our love and desire must be centred on him,
  `for where our treasure is, there will our hearts be also' (Mt 6:21)"
  (Bl. J. Escriv�, Christ is passing by, 35).

    So basically, you can do anything you want as long as your heart is
    in the right place, you have your priorities in order, and you don't
    worship wealth!?
    
    Piece of cake!
    
    Too bad the rich man took Jesus so literally.  Good thing so few of his
    latter-day followers do, eh?
    
    Richard
    

>    So basically, you can do anything you want as long as your heart is
>    in the right place, you have your priorities in order, and you don't
>    worship wealth!?

I really don't think that's what it says at all.

Richard, I don't know why you're so incredibly cynical.

I'm sorry you can't have a more positive attitude, an attitude which
builds up rather than tears down.

May God bless you, and heal your wounded spirit.

/john

    Seems to me I remember hearing/reading somewhere that the "needle's
    eye" was a very small gate into some walled city.  

re .7

Unlikely.  Though it makes for good exegesis, since to get through such
a small gate a camel would have to first be unloaded of all of its worldly
goods and made to go through on its knees, such gates were mostly constructed
a few hundred years after Jesus lived.

More likely it is a pun, since the Aramaic words for camel and rope (also
too large to go through the eye of a needle) are quite similar.

/john

.6

>I really don't think that's what it says at all.

Oh really?  What do you think it says then?

Richard

    Richard, we know it doesn't say that wealth precludes one from going to
    heaven!
    
    -Jack

>    Richard, we know it doesn't say that wealth precludes one from going to
>    heaven!

That's true.  It simply says that it's easier for a camel to go through a 
needle's eye than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Richard

Note 1205.4      Easier to thread a camel through a needle's eye         4 of 11
COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                      15 lines   8-JAN-1996 17:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the commentary on Luke by the Faculty of Theology at the University
>of Navarre:

> 24-26. The image of the camel and the eye of a needle is exaggeration for
> the sake of effect to show how enormously difficult it is for a rich man
> attached to his riches to enter the Kingdom of heaven.

 > "Earthly goods are not bad, but they are debased when man sets them up as
 > idols, when he adores them.  They are ennobled when they are converted into
 > instruments for good, for just and charitable Christian undertakings.  We
 > cannot seek after material goods as if they were a treasure. ... Our
 > treasure is Christ and all our love and desire must be centred on him,
 > `for where our treasure is, there will our hearts be also' (Mt 6:21)"
 > (Bl. J. Escriv�, Christ is passing by, 35).

    
    Are you saying that Jesus was exagerating?
    
    I agree with the commentary but find it interesting that members of the
    innerrancy school would agree that the scripture is exagerated!

"Exaggeration for the sake of effect" is not inconsistent with inerrancy.

(The Faculty of Theology at the University of Navarre, who wrote that
commentary, are dedicated to the inerrancy of scripture.)

What it says, Richard, is that it is very very difficult for a rich man,
who, because of his riches, is devoted to the things of man, to enter
the kingdom of heaven.  It says, however, that though it may be impossible
for man, it is possible for God.  What that means is that the grace of God,
working through the faith of a rich man, can work the necessary change in
faith required to set priorities on God rather than on wealth, making it
possible for even a rich man, with God's help, to enter heaven.

/john

    Exaggeration is a common technique in the words attributed to Jesus in
    the Gospels.  So we have another example where innerrantist do not take
    the words of the Bible as literal.  sometimes the Bible speaks in
    Metaphor.  Sometimes in exagerations.
    
    The  job of the innerrantist in deciding what to take literally,
    what to accept as metaphor, and what to accept as exaggeration seems to
    me no different than my determining what in the Bible makes sense to
    me, and what is culturally conditioned.

If Jesus had stopped with the words quoted in .0, you might have a point.

But he didn't.  His disciples asked him what he meant, and he explained
himself further.  These explanations have been passed down in the Apostolic
tradition.

We don't have to start from scratch and make up our own minds about what is
literal and what is example.

/john

Like so many other things in the New Testament, the message is clear.  If you
want to play interpretational games with it, then you've set the precedent
allowing "all" of Jesus's teachings open to symbolic interpretation.  If you 
believe that Jesus' words should be taken literally, then you should take the
literal interpretation of the passage to heart and quit playing games with
it in an effort to reconcile it with a preferred lifestyle.  

-dave
                                               

    
    Dave,
    
    Pardon us for not accepting your theological model for Biblical
    interpretation instead of the theology of orthodox Christianity.
    
    jeff
    
    

You're right.  My theological models are worthless.  I just thought you
might have given a little more value to those of your religion's namesake.

    
    What do you mean, Dave?  I don't understand.
    
    jeff

    RE .19
    
    I mean that my views on a lot of this are those of an "outsider" (if you
    will).  I've read and admire the New Testament.  It's a simple, clean,
    pure philosophy.  But I haven't studied it like many/most participate 
    in the conference.  I admit that.  And the main reason I read/write in
    this ocnference is to learn.
    
    But I'm puzzled.  I've never seen a religion embraced by so many yet 
    practiced by so few.  This "camel through the needle" thing is one of 
    many example.  There it is, plain and simple.  You know how the man
    lived and in your heart of hearts, you know what he meant by it.  And
    it's uncomfortable because being a strict follower of the teaching
    would mean making a huge sacrifice.  
    
    So I (not as a knowlegable christian theologist, but as a common 
    man with common sense) see a lot of squirming on this issue.  The
    simple, clean, pure teaching has conditions and ammendments imposed on
    it until it fits the more comfortable way of life that's dificult to
    give up.  Instead of a simple teaching knowable to all, it's been 
    twisted into a complicated notion, reliant on Old Testament passages,
    apostolic letters and other "2ndary" sources (2ndary to Jesus).  
    
    I catch a whif of hypocricy in some who accept the unbelievable and
    complicated story of Noah "word for word literal" while at the same time 
    question the simple message in the camel/needle passage.  The difference
    (as I see it)?  One requires no sacrifice, the other a lot.  
    
    I have a friend who's a born again christian.  He owns a home, two
    cars, etc... .  He admits that he's falling short when it comes to 
    following the letter of Jesus' word.  He attributes this to the fact
    that he's a weak human who needs salvation, Jesus' help, God's grace,
    etc... .  I respect him for that because he admits the disconnection
    between the teaching and the written word.  He doesn't try to
    rationalize his position.
    
    I think St. Francis might have been a true christian.  Perhaps my born 
    again christian friend is as well.  Perhaps anyone who marches to the 
    theme of Jesus' teachings is, regardless of their religion (or lack 
    thereof).
    
    I dunno.  Maybe I'll find out when I die.  Maybe I'll burn in Hell, but
    if I do, it'll be on the (de)merits of seaking the truth.
    
    -dave

    Hi Dave,
    
>    I mean that my views on a lot of this are those of an "outsider" (if you
>    will).  I've read and admire the New Testament.  It's a simple, clean,
>    pure philosophy.  But I haven't studied it like many/most participate 
>    in the conference.  I admit that.  And the main reason I read/write in
>    this ocnference is to learn.

    Okay, I see now.
    
>    But I'm puzzled.  I've never seen a religion embraced by so many yet 
>    practiced by so few.  This "camel through the needle" thing is one of 
>    many example.  There it is, plain and simple.  You know how the man
>    lived and in your heart of hearts, you know what he meant by it.  And
>    it's uncomfortable because being a strict follower of the teaching
>    would mean making a huge sacrifice.  
 
    This is where you are at fault, David.  You acknowledge your relative
    ignorance in the first paragraph and then in the second paragraph you
    chastise me (and others) for not understanding/accepting the passage
    the same way you do.

>    So I (not as a knowlegable christian theologist, but as a common 
>    man with common sense) see a lot of squirming on this issue.  The
>    simple, clean, pure teaching has conditions and ammendments imposed on
>    it until it fits the more comfortable way of life that's dificult to
>    give up.  Instead of a simple teaching knowable to all, it's been 
>    twisted into a complicated notion, reliant on Old Testament passages,
>    apostolic letters and other "2ndary" sources (2ndary to Jesus).  
 
    First of all, the Bible must be interpreted by the Bible.  If there is
    a passage which is unclear it must be seen in the light of the whole
    Bible record.  It is grossly ignorant to not know that Job,
    Abraham, David, Solomon, and on and on were never asked to give up
    their wealth to be godly.  Indeed all of them viewed their wealth as
    straight from the hand of God, and rightly so.  Similarly, no Pharisee
    was ever criticised for his wealth in the NT by Christ nor asked to give
    it away, and they were all wealthy, the most influential in their
    society.  The idea you have latched on to isn't even supported in the
    context of the record itself.  Read it and read it again until you see
    that the topic is not about whether one should have riches or not (as
    this would have been a completely foreign concept to a Jew, and even to
    a Christian, as all wealth is acknowledged as a gift from God because the
    Scriptures teach this directly and indirectly).
   
>    I catch a whif of hypocricy in some who accept the unbelievable and
>    complicated story of Noah "word for word literal" while at the same time 
>    question the simple message in the camel/needle passage.  The difference
>    (as I see it)?  One requires no sacrifice, the other a lot.  
 
    Well, I think this is a common criticism from an unbeliever.  Isn't
    hypocrisy the catchword for the critics of Christianity?  It most
    certainly is and has been for a long, long time now.  But it is
    your ignorance and unbelief, Dave, that blinds your eyes to the truth
    of this Scripture and induces you to level such a charge, not my nor the 
    rich young ruler nor any other Christian's hypocrisy.
   
>    I have a friend who's a born again christian.  He owns a home, two
>    cars, etc... .  He admits that he's falling short when it comes to 
>    following the letter of Jesus' word.  He attributes this to the fact
>    that he's a weak human who needs salvation, Jesus' help, God's grace,
>    etc... .  I respect him for that because he admits the disconnection
>    between the teaching and the written word.  He doesn't try to
>    rationalize his position.
 
    It's too bad that a Christian is made to feel guilty by an unbeliever's
    scorn and teaching, as it were.
   
>    I think St. Francis might have been a true christian.  Perhaps my born 
>    again christian friend is as well.  Perhaps anyone who marches to the 
>    theme of Jesus' teachings is, regardless of their religion (or lack 
>    thereof).
 
    There's only one type of Christian, Dave.  And that is he who places
    his trust in Jesus' sacrifice for his sin.
   
>    I dunno.  Maybe I'll find out when I die.  Maybe I'll burn in Hell, but
>    if I do, it'll be on the (de)merits of seaking the truth.
    
    My friend you shall burn in hell unless you change your mind about your
    life and Christ's death and resurrection.  You oddly attribute your
    ignorance to seeking the truth.  The Bible makes it clear that those who
    seek God shall find Him.  But you'll have to really seek Him, not a
    fortification of your unbelief.  The Bible, then prayer, is the only 
    place to begin and finish your "seeking".

    jeff

Re .21

>or not understanding/accepting the passage the same way you do.

The "same way I do" is the same way any objective reader would.  Jesus in
effect said that it's impossible for a rich man to go to heaven.  He didn't
footnote this with exceptions, exemptions or special conditions.  And the theme
in this teaching was completely consistent with so many other things he said 
and did.  The message seems clear.  Mining other sources seems
inappropriate when the message is clear.

I see many "quasi" contradictions between OT and NT writtings.  The
camel/needle is just one.  I can't help but believe that many of Jesus' poorer
contempararies were confussed as well, leaving theological understanding to
the sages and rabbis and leaving the common "ignorant" slob out in the street. 
Enter Jesus with a simple, clear message of salvation that didn't rely on
other sources.  I you want to cling to 2ndary sources, you have to play a game
of reconcilling ALL Jesus teachings with ALL those sources.  If David was a
rich man, and it's easier for a camel to pass through a needle than it is for
a rich man to get to heaven, then he must have had a hell of a time getting to
heaven.  Yes, you can validate something different using other sources but
setting this precedent leaves Jesus word open to all sorts of interpretation.

>you chastise me

I chastize no one.  I challenge your position in an effort to learn.  I've yet
to see an adaquet defense of being rich and living in concert with Jesus'
teachings.  You misinterpret my objectives.  

>If there is a passage which is unclear it must be seen in the light of the 
>whole Bible record.  

I wouldn't be surprized to find christians living in poverty "seeing" the 
camel/needle passage with crystal clarity.  Can "unclear" equate to 
"uncomfortable"?  In other words, if Jesus' teachings are easy to follow, then
look no ferther... follow.  Else look at the teachings "in the light of the
whole Bible record" until the discomfort wanes?   (I'm not chastizing here 
Jeff, don't misinterpret)

>The idea you have latched on to isn't even supported in the context of the 
> record itself.

The idea I have latched onto is that Jesus said that it's impossible (or nearly
so) for a rich man to go to heaven.  I've read it enough to have it firmly in
memory.  I think about it on my car and when I go for my run at lunch time.  
The message is clear.  Jesus was supposed to be speaking to the common man.  
One should not require a degree in theology or an extensive knowlege of the 
OT to get the message.  It's clear.  I don't have the strength or inclination
to follow it.  I admit that.  

>Well, I think this is a common criticism from an unbeliever

It might be a common criticism from anyone, christian or not, who looks at 
this objectively.  Some may want to use it as a self criticizm, as my born 
again christian friend does.

>    It's too bad that a Christian is made to feel guilty by an unbeliever's
>    scorn and teaching, as it were.

Way off the mark here Jeff.  My friend's beliefs and faith are firmly 
rooted in the Bible and are not swayed by me in any way (believe me on this,
he's tougher than many who participate in this conference :-) ).   If my
estimation of his feelings is worth anything, I'd say he feels "humbled" and
"in need of salvation", not "guilty".

I do not attack my friend in our discussions.  I do not try to sway him or make
him feel guilty.  Sometimes I bring up points which cause him to think.   
We've thanked each other on more than one occasion for ideas which have led to 
insights.  He's firm in his faith but open to discussion.

>And that is he who places his trust in Jesus' sacrifice for his sin.

If that's true, then money should not be an issue to anyone who trusts in his 
sacrifice, right?  If so, then why did he bother saying anything more?  Are
all the messages about richeous living secondary to the belief in his
sacrifice?  If Hitler believed in Jesus' sacrifice, is he in heaven?  (not
being sarcastic here, just asking a question)

>You oddly attribute your ignorance to seeking the truth. 

The search for truth does not yield ignorance, hopefully, quite the contrary.  
Everyone who seeks the truth objectively starts with ignorance.  You choose 
to start with the Bible.  So be it.  I won't and don't fault you for that.

I start with what I know I have.... my senses, ability to reason and a huge
complex puzzle we call the universe.  I study the puzzle as I believe I was
"designed" to do.  Many before me have studied this puzzle and have written 
down their thoughts.  I consider their thoughts.  I consider the wisdom in the
Bible, and the Koran and the Upanishads and scientific journals and other
places too.  

>The Bible makes it clear that those who seek God shall find Him.

If this is true, then I shall find him.  Still looking.

>But you'll have to really seek Him.

I really am.  As we speak, my truck has 3 books in it, all of which I've
either read or am reading.  One is "God and the Big Bang" a book Micheal Crews
recommended to me in another note.  Another is "The Gospel according to
Jesus" by a guy named Michell.  Another is a book by Paul DAvies called "The 
Mind of God".  The other is a small book on NAtive American wisdom and
philosophy.  Sorry,my copy of the Bible is in my room.   I'm using the 
search tools God gave me (if I was indeed created).  I won't ignore these 
gifts in favor of blind faith.  I may never solve the puzzle but maybe the 
effort is what really counts.  

>The Bible, then prayer, is the only place to begin and finish your "seeking".

If this was inately obvious, then it would be a sensible approach.  (The
inately obvious approach is using the inately obvious facilities at hand.)  If
your statement is rooted in the Bible, and you accept the Bible on faith, then 
this would be a sensible approach.  If neither of these is true, then it'd
still be worth a try.  I've tried.  No luck.  I'm cautious of fabricating a 
belief rooted in "wishful thinking".  



-dave

    

Hi Dave,

jb>>or not understanding/accepting the passage the same way you do.

>The "same way I do" is the same way any objective reader would.  Jesus in
>effect said that it's impossible for a rich man to go to heaven.  He didn't
>footnote this with exceptions, exemptions or special conditions.  And the theme
>in this teaching was completely consistent with so many other things he said 
>and did.  The message seems clear.  Mining other sources seems
>inappropriate when the message is clear.

Well, I shall not argue with you on this matter.  You're obviously convinced
that you know what you're talking about and that you're the final arbiter
of what should be concluded from this passage, taken out of context and your
relative ignorance withstanding, of course.

>I see many "quasi" contradictions between OT and NT writtings.  The
>camel/needle is just one.  I can't help but believe that many of Jesus' poorer
>contempararies were confussed as well, leaving theological understanding to
>the sages and rabbis and leaving the common "ignorant" slob out in the street. 
>Enter Jesus with a simple, clear message of salvation that didn't rely on
>other sources.  I you want to cling to 2ndary sources, you have to play a game
>of reconcilling ALL Jesus teachings with ALL those sources.  If David was a
>rich man, and it's easier for a camel to pass through a needle than it is for
>a rich man to get to heaven, then he must have had a hell of a time getting to
>heaven.  Yes, you can validate something different using other sources but
>setting this precedent leaves Jesus word open to all sorts of interpretation.

Again, you obviously believe that your relative ignorance of the Bible is
ground enough to make decisions regarding the meaning of the Bible record.

>>you chastise me

>I chastize no one.  I challenge your position in an effort to learn.  I've yet
>to see an adaquet defense of being rich and living in concert with Jesus'
>teachings.  You misinterpret my objectives.  

You do not challenge my position in an effort to learn.  You challenge the
orthodox Christian position because it is at odds with your own.  One who
is in a learning mode listens, and defers, and asks questions that shed further
light upon the position one is at odds with and which has the authority of
scholars, laymen, thousands of years of history, and the Bible itself.

Why defend being rich and being a Christian when there is no reason to defend 
it?  To do so is to discount the larger part of Scripture on this subject which
shows all legitimate wealth coming from God.  

>>If there is a passage which is unclear it must be seen in the light of the 
>>whole Bible record.  

>I wouldn't be surprized to find christians living in poverty "seeing" the 
>camel/needle passage with crystal clarity.  Can "unclear" equate to 
>"uncomfortable"?  In other words, if Jesus' teachings are easy to follow, then
>look no ferther... follow.  Else look at the teachings "in the light of the
>whole Bible record" until the discomfort wanes?   (I'm not chastizing here 
>Jeff, don't misinterpret)

You elevate riches/poverty (both worldly circumstances) to an unreasonable
position considering the Bible's purpose, theme and content.  And you 
suggest that all subjects are equal in their depth and complexity and our
ability to understand them.  The Bible doesn't say that all of Jesus' teachings
are easy to follow and the Bible doesn't limit Scripture to only Jesus'
teachings while incarnate on earth.  Indeed the Bible says that there are
some hard things to understand in the Bible, things the unlearned and unstable
twist to their own destruction.  

And furthermore you suggest repeatedly in this string that it is my or other
professed Christians' "discomfort" which causes us to rationalize what you,
an unbeliever, can clearly see in the Bible.  Where do you get such an idea?
The life of the believer is filled with more discomfort than you can imagine.

>>The idea you have latched on to isn't even supported in the context of the 
>> record itself.

>>    It's too bad that a Christian is made to feel guilty by an unbeliever's
>>    scorn and teaching, as it were.

>Way off the mark here Jeff.  My friend's beliefs and faith are firmly 
>rooted in the Bible and are not swayed by me in any way (believe me on this,
>he's tougher than many who participate in this conference :-) ).   If my
>estimation of his feelings is worth anything, I'd say he feels "humbled" and
>"in need of salvation", not "guilty".

By the way you wrote you linked your beliefs about this passage we're 
discussing to your friend's guilt over having a house, two cars, etc (btw,
hardly a rich man, it seems). 

>>And that is he who places his trust in Jesus' sacrifice for his sin.

>If that's true, then money should not be an issue to anyone who trusts in his 
>sacrifice, right?  

Wrong!!!  

>If so, then why did he bother saying anything more?  Are
>all the messages about richeous living secondary to the belief in his
>sacrifice?  If Hitler believed in Jesus' sacrifice, is he in heaven?  (not
>being sarcastic here, just asking a question)

First off, do you mean by "richeous"- "righteous", "reichteous" (re: later
allusion to Hitler), or "richeous" (whatever that is, presumably something
about being wealthy?)?

If you mean "righteous" living then the answer to your question is yes and
no.  There can be no righteous living without being born again.  Righteous
living, as the Bible defines it, is a result of salvation.

>>You oddly attribute your ignorance to seeking the truth. 

>The search for truth does not yield ignorance, hopefully, quite the contrary.  
>Everyone who seeks the truth objectively starts with ignorance.  You choose 
>to start with the Bible.  So be it.  I won't and don't fault you for that.

You have to believe truth exists to seek it.  You've demonstrated in earlier
notes that you are not convinced truth exists.  You have no chance of *finding*
that which you don't believe exists for  you will never be motivated to start
such an excursion unless you believe there was a good chance of being
successful.

And to be clear, I started with the Bible because God demonstrated its truth
to me, in my heart and mind.  When I was re-born into His kingdom, I became
alive to His Word.  As I have lived this new life in Christ and applied the
Scriptures to my own life and circumstances, its truth and value is even more
apparent.

>I start with what I know I have.... my senses, ability to reason and a huge
>complex puzzle we call the universe.  I study the puzzle as I believe I was
>"designed" to do.  Many before me have studied this puzzle and have written 
>down their thoughts.  I consider their thoughts.  I consider the wisdom in the
>Bible, and the Koran and the Upanishads and scientific journals and other
>places too.  

But you've been told by those who are members of His kingdom, who know Him,
where the whole truth is found - in His Word.  You need not approach the
elephant as a blind man.

>>The Bible makes it clear that those who seek God shall find Him.

>If this is true, then I shall find him.  Still looking.

I pray that you will diligently seek Him.

jeff

    Sorry to butt in here, not having read all the replies, however...

    I interpret the trouble with being rich is that, most often,
    a rich person is satiated - not hungry.

    How can someone who is filled with earthly possessions and who
    wants for nothing ever cultivate the intense hunger for the
    Holy Spirit required to enter the gates of heaven?

    Only a creature who is without baggage who is lean and driven
    is capable of extraordinary things.

    If you want to achieve the Holy Spirit, pray of hunger.  Pray
    for desperation.  Pray for thirst that only the Holy Spirit can
    satisfy and you will be satisfied.  (Yes, I'm using metaphor)

    On such a journey you cannot let pettiness get in your way.  If
    God sends help in the form of a gay communist, who am I to 
    refuse it?

    The grace is out there!  LOTS OF IT!  OCEANS!  Only those who 
    hunger for it are motivated to go beyond their hang-ups will 
    be able to see it.

    I'm sorry.  I really have to work on this humility thing...

    Tom

    .24
    
    Good to "see" you here, Tom.  You've been missed!
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Re .23

Well Jeff, I read your reply and found that the vast majority of my reply 
would be in correcting your misinterpretations of what I've written.  The few 
pieces in your reply I'd like to discuss ferther aren;t worth the agony of
this soapbox debate. This is going nowhere.  It seems that you take offense at 
everything I write.  The more I think about this string, the more I become 
alienated toward you and your religion.  That's not what I want.  Have a 
good one.

Re .24

Very interesting reply.  I've heard it said that many artists find their
creativity in pits of depression, desperation and hardship.  I wonder if 
there's a connection.

>Very interesting reply.  I've heard it said that many artists find their
>creativity in pits of depression, desperation and hardship.  I wonder if 
>there's a connection.

    That *is* interesting.

    Handel wrote The Messiah at the lowest point in his career.

    You know, I define art as being something that, when being created,
    raises a person out of his mundane perception of the world.  The
    art, in turn, then becomes capable of inspiring the viewer to achieve
    the same exalted state that the artist experienced.

    So, does art represent a (partial) breakthrough to communion with
    God?

    Maybe this is worth persuing.

    Tom

>Well Jeff, I read your reply and found that the vast majority of my reply 
>would be in correcting your misinterpretations of what I've written.
    
    Don't worry about correcting my misinterpretations of what you've
    written unless they are directly related to the topic at hand, unless
    you want to of course.
      
    >The few pieces in your reply I'd like to discuss ferther aren;t worth 
    >the agony of this soapbox debate. This is going nowhere.  
    
    I apologize if I have "shut you down" by my replies.  I am willing to
    continue the discussion and will attempt to minimize the agony of
    communicating with me.
    
    
    >It seems that you take offense at everything I write.  
    
    I do not!  You are grossly misinterpreting my message if you conclude
    this is the case.  I don't think I've been offended in notes in eons.  
    I don't easily take offense.
    
    >The more I think about this string, the more I become 
    >alienated toward you and your religion.  That's not what I want.  Have a 
    >good one.

    I'm sorry, Dave.  Just what is the source of your alienation?  I don't
    want to alienate you.
    
    
    jeff

    There was a spot on the radio that talked about this.  It didn't
    mention Handel, but it did mentione Beethoven.  He wrote his angry
    5th symphony after having lost his hearing, his beautiful spring-like
    6th symphony after rebounding from that tragedy, and his 9th when he 
    came to grip with the fact that he was dying.  His other symphonies,
    composed when things were "fine" were mediocre (save the 3rd which
    was about Napolean who he saw as someosort of civil savior).
    
    The radio show went on to question what would be lost if depression was
    "cured".  Walt Whitman, Poe, Van Gogh, etc... all suffered from
    depression.  In a sense, was God granting these people the gift of
    creativity through the agony of their depression?  Hmmmm... .  
    
    Other conditions were mentioed, amoung them homosexuality.  Thoreau,
    Michealangelo and others were cited.  I'm not suggesting these people 
    were diseased, but the social rejection of the time wouldn't have been 
    too fun to cope with.  
    
    The show didn't mention God (after all, it was on NPR), but I wouldn't
    be at all surprized to learn that there was a connection.  It would be 
    interesting to map artistic creativity with religious revelations.
    
    I know this doesn't fall under the umbrella of christianity, but I read
    an interesting view on the life of the Buddah.  The man was born into a 
    very affluent family.  This was equated to a type of barrier which he 
    had to work his way through.  Only when he was free of material posessions 
    did he attain Nirvana. I wonder if there's a parallel to christianity.
    
    -dave
    

It's curious to me that some would be so to quick to defend wealth and
materialism.  I wonder who might be so quick to defend those of little
wealth and few possessions.

Jesus in the gospels, particularly Matthew and Luke, had some pretty harsh
things to say about affluence.  Jesus virtually never said anything in
favor of the accumulation of wealth.

Yes, Jesus did indicate that all things are possible with God.  He did not
indicate that all things were probable with God.  It's possible that God
could pass a camel through the eye of a needle.  But how probable is it that
God would?

Shalom,
Richard

    
    And how does one "defend those of little wealth..." in the context of
    this topic and subsequent discussion?
    
    You exalt the poor and the rich, both temporal circumstances, way
    beyond their importance.  In general, the rich in their affluence have 
    less perceived need of and interest in God.  Some portion of the poor 
    have more preceived need of and interest in God.  Big woo.
    
    jeff

.0

[Jesus speaking] How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the
kingdom of God!  For it is easier for a �camel� to go through a �needle's�
eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Of course, wealth and poverty are relative terms.  In contrast to the
average citizen of Mombasa, Kenya, for example, most of us live like
royalty.

Shalom,
Richard

An area that remains enigmatic is the notion of the kingdom of God, or
heaven.  Is it a place you go when you die?  Is it something more?  Is
it something else?  (See topic 1149)

What does it mean to "enter into the kingdom of God"?

Shalom,
Richard

    Meister Eckhart suggested that there is no such thing as eternal
    dammnation.  He suggested that hell is a phase that we need to go
    through before entering heaven.  It's a time when our earthy
    attachments are stripped away, however painful that may be.  We'll
    percieve that as hellish torture but it's really a "cleansing phase" 
    (or so he said).  Maybe Jesus' warnings about material wealth and other 
    earthly attachments were meant to minimize the pain in this transition 
    phase.  Maybe one's state at the point of death is unimportant and that
    learning and cleansing still happens afterward.  

    One of my favorite movies, Jacob's Ladder, played on this idea.  It's a
    story about how a dying American soldier in Vietnam passed through this
    experience.

    "Hell is that part of you which holds onto life when it's your time to
    die"

    "The devils you see striping your life away are really angels freeing
    you"

    (inexact quotes from Eckhart, but the idea is there)

    -dave

    Hmmmm... but then again, when Jesus came to the blind man who was
    begging for money, he gave him his sight, not what he asked for but
    what he needed.  
    
    -dave

    
    I would have to say that Jesus was talking about a state of character
    and not a state of circumstance. What is wealth anyway? As someone
    pointed out, even the poor American is better off than the average
    person in, say, Rwanda. Is the welfare mom then considered a "rich"
    person because her material standard of living, such as it is, is far
    better than that of a Rwandain refugee?

    It seems to me that in Jesus' time, as in our's, there is the a whole
    image that is conjured when one refers to a rich person. Is Jesus
    referring to what we in this day and age would call the idle rich; the
    pride, avarice, sloth, gluttony, wrath, envy, lust so commonly
    associated with the jet-setting playboy types? Jesus could be using
    this negative image of a rich person, the traditional oppressor of the
    poor and down-trodden, to send a message about what God expects of his
    children. This would tie in well the Sermon on the Mount, where he also
    is talking about character and not circumstance.

    Having material goods does not make one rich, just as having a beer
    doesn't make one drunkard, or being chubby doesn't bake one a glutton.
    Although I feel the state of wealth is not a damnable condition,
    it brings with it a slew of temptations that make it harder to follow
    the message of Christ. Having the accumulation of money and material
    things as a goal in life is what Jesus is talking about. Likewise, our
    incessant disdain for, and fear of, anything that would lessen our
    material wealth (e.g. taxes, welfare), is exactly what Jesus was
    talking about.

    Eric

Reading through this string reminded me that there is a widely held
misconception that "heaven" and the "kingdom of heaven" are synonymous terms.
They are not synonymous anymore than "Britain" and the "British Empire" are
synonymous. 

Holding this misconception leds to a misinterpretation of these verses.

Regards,
Ace 

.47

>Reading through this string reminded me that there is a widely held
>misconception that "heaven" and the "kingdom of heaven" are synonymous terms.
>They are not synonymous anymore than "Britain" and the "British Empire" are
>synonymous. 

>Holding this misconception leds to a misinterpretation of these verses.

Okay, Ace, I'll ask again:

================================================================================
Note 1205.33     Easier to thread a camel through a needle's eye        33 of 37
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Ps. 85.10"                         9 lines  13-JAN-1996 15:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An area that remains enigmatic is the notion of the kingdom of God, or
[kingdom of] heaven.  Is it a place you go when you die?  Is it something
more?  Is it something else?  (See topic 1149)

What does it mean to "enter into the kingdom of God"?

Shalom,
Richard

I'm not sure, but Ace, are you meaning that the "Kingdom of Heaven" is
life lived with the Ruler of Heaven (God) as its King, and in obedience
to how the King desires us to live?  

Leslie

    .39
    
    I don't know about Ace, but that is very close to what I would take
    it to mean, Leslie.
    
    Richard
    

Hi Leslie, Richard,

yes, living a life under the ruling of the heavens is the reality of the kingdom
of the heavens. There are other aspects, but what you said is one of them.

regards,
ace

    We sing "All to Thee, I surrender," but in reality we don't surrender
    much.
    
    Richard
    

 we (most of us) sure try though.   Growing in  Christ is a matter of surrend-
 ering more of ourselves to Him each day.  We grow another step with each
 piece of our lives we surrender to Him.

 "all to thee by blessed saviour
  I surrender all..




Jim

re.42, .43

	Yes. Surrendering everyday is another way of saying that the self
needs to be "crossed out" each day. However, all is not bleak! To the extent
that we experience His cross applied to our daily lives, we also will 
experience the power of His resurrection. The experience of the cross
serves as a base for the experience of His resurrection. 

No cross, no resurrection. This is the reality of the kingdom of the
heavens. To the point of the note: Riches easily become baggage preventing us
from entering the kingdom of the heavens because we are not inclined to
surrender them. 

Regards,
Ace

.44

>To the point of the note: Riches easily become baggage preventing us
>from entering the kingdom of the heavens because we are not inclined to
>surrender them. 

Precisely.  The one aspect folks would certainly like to factor out of
their faith is Jesus' teachings on material goods and comforts.

Shalom,
Richard

    I see a distinct parallel to this thread and to the side/aspect
    of God that the Hindus call Shiva.
    
    Shiva is the destroyer.  Not the destroyer of souls but the 
    destroyer of things that keep man from God.  It doesn't take
    much to see the similarities to the cross.
    
    I'm sure many of you have see the statue of the multi armed "god"
    dancing on the body of a man.
    
    Shiva is one of the intelligent aspects of God Who arranges
    things in our life such that our pettiness is chipped away until we 
    are left with nothing but ourSelves - our essence - the image
    from Whom we are made - Love.
    
    Tom Baker

re.46

Tom,

>our pettiness is chipped away until we are left with nothing but ourSelves -
>our essence - the image from Whom we are made - Love.

This is a fundamental difference. The cross of Christ eliminates the self. 
What passes through death? Only resurrection. Resurrection is a person,
Jesus Christ. "I am the Resurrection...". 

The cross terminates the old creation. Our self is very much a part of the
old creation. Even though man was created in the image of God (Gen), he still
needs to be terminated because of his fallen nature. Only that which is 
constituted with Resurrection will pass through the terminating power of the
cross. The cross leaves nothing remaining except that which is of the
new creation. On one side of the cross is the old creation, on the other
side of the cross is the new creation. Nothing of the old creation can pass
through to the new creation. Therefore, the cross of Christ leaves only
Christ, the self has been terminated.

I say this not to convince you, but to draw the distinction.

Regards,
Ace

>This is a fundamental difference. The cross of Christ eliminates the self. 
>What passes through death? Only resurrection. Resurrection is a person,
>Jesus Christ. "I am the Resurrection...". 

It sounds like this process obliterates the soul.  Somehow,
I don't think that's what you're trying to say.

Tom Baker

re-1

The soul is an organ. It is the life of the soul, that is the "psuche", the
self, the old man, the "I" was crucified with Christ on the cross (GAL 2:20).
When a person receives the Lord Jesus (by their believing into Him), they
receive Him into their spirit. "That which is born of Spirit is spirit" John 4.
Now our soul is being saved daily through the process of transformation by
allowing Him to spread from our spirit to all the parts of our soul. (2 COR
3:18) 

So the life of the soul, the self has been terminated. Now the soul is being
transformed daily by denying ourselves and allowing Him to gain control over our
entire being through the process of transformation. To the point of this topic,
riches are an area that is hard for a christian to surrender to Him. But as the
Lord said, with man it is impossible, yet with God all things are possible. This
means though the rich man does not have the ability to release his riches (that
is his self), yet with God it is possible (that is the yielding to His ruling
and reigning within, a.k.a. the experience of the reality of the kingdom of the
heavens).

Hope this helps you to understand the biblical view. Or at least what I believe
is the biblical view! 8*)

Regards,
ace

    Hi Ace,

    Apparently our views are very close.  The major difference
    we have is the use of the world "self".  In Hinduism, there
    is the big self (Self) and the little self (self).  The
    Self is connected to God but feels as though it is separate.
    The Self longs to be reunited with the "universal Self". IE
    God.  Another name for the Self could be the soul.

    The little self is that part of us that wants to be smart,
    wants to be rich and is afraid that we are going to be hurt
    or robbed or laughed at.  It thinks that it is in control.
    
    It is this little self that must be stripped, peeled, burned,
    and/or hacked away.  Or, at least, put in its place.

    The soul/Self is an extention of God.  It is really Who is
    in control.  Part of the "trick" is to listen to the "higher
    self" (AKA: God) and do what S/He desired.  "Not my will but
    Thine."  The little self must realize it doesn't actually
    do anything - it's all done by God.

    This goes into much greater detail about praise and blame and
    fear and everything else.  I'm sorry but I don't have the 
    time now to write about it.
    
    Tom Baker

Hi Tom,

>Apparently our views are very close. 

Hey not so fast!  8*)

Though Adam was made in the image of God, after God's kind, when he fell he lost
that status and became flesh (Gen 6:3). The life of man (first Adam) is
terminated and is replaced by the last Adam. (1 Cor 15:45). The last Adam is
spirtual whereas the first adam is soulish.

Both the big "Self" and the little "self" are terminated in God's arrangement.
God doesn't attempt to improve what is fallen. Rather He starts over with a new
creation. That new creation is only available in Christ.

> I'm sorry but I don't have the time now to write about it.

No problem, I'd hardly have to read it anyway. It's good to be busy these days.

Regards,
Ace

    So, what you're saying is that we start out with who we are.
    As we believe in Christ and worship God, something else starts
    to grow in us.  Given an opportunity, that (That?) grows until
    it takes over and permeates the entire being.  What was there
    has been shed and we are a completely new being.  In effect,
    there is a total transformation.

    Or, at least this is what happens if that new "spark" is allowed
    to fully mature.  If there the tranformation doesn't have an
    opportunity to finish, whatever is left over of the old self
    is "torched".

    Is this what you believe?  I don't know as I accept it.
    
    Tom Baker

Tom,

Hey, that's pretty good preaching there fella.  8*)

Yes, that's roughly it. That "spark" is a Person, Jesus Christ as the Spirit
poured into our hearts when we believe into Him. 

The process is similar to that of the petrification of a log. While the log
stays in the water, the minerals from the water wash in and wood element washes
out. In the end you have what is still looks like a log but its basic
constitution of wood has been replaced by minerals from the water. The Spirit of
God flows all the riches of Christ into the believer (as long as they remain in
the flow) washing out all the old fallen self. This flowing of God into the
believer constitutes them with God Himself transforming them completely. This is
what the Bible reveals.

Regards,
Ace