Houston GLBTQX Ordinance Loses by Wide Margin

[Cow Poke]

When Jesus had the opportunity to lay out his view on the final judgement and afterlife...

So, just out of curiosity, when Jesus had that wonderful SALVATION discourse with Nicodemus (John 3), a very rich man who became a good friend, why didn't he mention anything about Nick giving up his wealth? And, at Jesus' death (John 19:39-42), Nick was, obviously, still a wealthy man.

[Starlight]

OK, so maybe you can explain this....

But when the disciples in Acts have a chance to live out what they have learned from Jesus, what they set up is a commune that enforces 100% control of its members money by the governing administration, and which backs that up with the death penalty.

Um, okay, I thought I was just straightforwardly describing what was in Acts. I take it you agree with the part where I note set up a commune and the administration controlled the wealth etc? But you and KG both took issue with me saying there was a death penalty. I was simply referring to the Ananias and Sapphira account, without particularly feeling I was saying anything controversial. So let's delve into some detail...

In the Ananias and Sapphira account the death penalty (courtesy of God) is used as an enforcement mechanism against those who are cheating the system. To most readers today it strikes us as a vastly excessive penalty for what appears to be a white lie. A&S have apparently made a voluntary charitable donation of quite a large amount of money to the cause, kept a bit of money for themselves which seems reasonable, and then when pressed told a few white lies saying that had totally given all of their money and they totally promise and pinky-swear.

I am pretty sure that there are plenty of people in churches today who give generously to their church, but perhaps not quite as much as 10% of their income, and when their church leadership gets overzealous about tithing and demands to know if they are truly giving ten percent of their income they say "yeah, of course we're good Christians, we totally promise that this is 10%" while thinking "geez, we're giving you lots, how about you be grateful for what we're giving rather than pressuring us into giving more. It's none of your business exactly how much we earn or whether we're tithing perfectly, and we don't agree with your theology of tithing, but I don't want to have a theological argument with you so just go away". I'm usually pretty against lying, but even I've got to admit that white lies sometimes oil the gears of social interaction and help smooth out differences of opinion and help avoid conflicts.

The account itself in Acts of A&S is IMO a little light on exactly what was so wrong with what Ananias was doing that it required a death penalty. No country today would remotely consider a death penalty for lying about one's donations. At most the IRS would do fines or jail time if someone had claimed false donations to evade tax, and A&S weren't even doing that. The situation in Acts seems even more bizarre, because presumably these donations were not compulsory. So neither A&S nor the apostles seemingly have anything to gain or lose here. So a reasonable person might wonder what is going on here.

I think the answer is found in the fact that basically, any time anyone sets up a group akin to the one described in Acts, where everyone is sharing everything and where money is involved, there will be some people who seek to exploit the system. They will find, or try to find, a variety of ways to do so. Ultimately in real life communism tends to fail badly because of this. So there needs to be rules, and there needs to be the threat of punishment for those who choose to exploit the group for their own gain. Basically it needs police. And most modern communist systems have found it needs really really strong over-the-top authoritarian punishment to keep those who would exploit the system in cheat. And in this little idealistic theocratic-communist system described in Acts, it appears that the apostles put themselves in the role of the distribution of the money, and God gets cast as the police-force, who strikes down dead anyone who "breaks the rules". The account of A&S therefore serves as a warning to people in the community - don't break the rules or else. It presumably would have circulated among the early Christians in the community as a warning story: Don't cheat the rules of the community, or else. It becomes a bit irrelevant exactly what rules A&S themselves as individuals had broken, because the importance of the story is probably not so much in the details of what happened to A&S or what particular rule they broke, the importance of the story is in the fact that other people in the community come to understand that they shouldn't break the rules otherwise God will strike them down too. God enforcing a death penalty becomes a vague and nebulous threat that hangs over everyone if anyone should break the rules of the community.

[RumTumTugger]

Please don't conflate your opinions on an interpretative issue and fact.

Starlight you need to stop using the mirror instead of a monitor here. you are the one conflating your opinions in trying to force an interpreting that is not there and reading into the bible your world view instead of taking out of the bible what it says.

Give an exact quote from Jesus that commands you to give your money to the government.

[Starlight]

Give an exact quote from Jesus that commands you to give your money to the government.

Your arbitrary and emphatic demands amuse me

Mk 12:15-17
"Bring me a denarius and let me look at it."
They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose image is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied.
Then Jesus said to them, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's"

So, on that subject, what proportion of the notes in your wallet have "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE - THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" printed on them? Try some rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

[Starlight]

So, just out of curiosity, when Jesus had that wonderful SALVATION discourse with Nicodemus (John 3), a very rich man who became a good friend, why didn't he mention anything about Nick giving up his wealth? And, at Jesus' death (John 19:39-42), Nick was, obviously, still a wealthy man.

Is your question essentially, "why doesn't Jesus always, at every single time and opportunity, talk about wealth and poverty?" Because, he talks about it a loooooooot. Like, a lot, a lot, a lot, a lot. To the point where it's basically the biggest theme in the gospels. So, I'm scratching my head as to what a "hah, well he didn't talk about it 100% of the time, so there!" approach gains you. Compare say, Martin Luther King Jr, who talked about racial issues a lot and that was what he was known for and recognized for. But was every conversation he ever had all about racial issues? Of course not. He had views on plenty of other things too. So if you came to me and said "here's evidence of MLK having a conversation that's not about racial issues!" I'd say "so what?".

In general, the gospel of John poses a problem for scholars because it's quite different to the other gospels. It also tends to use a very different type of language (it uses much more "evangelical" terms like "salvation" etc). Often Christians have explained the difference by saying John was written after the others, and took for granted his readers knew the content of the other gospels, so tried to provide a bit of a different point of view by including stories not present in the other gospels and reflecting a bit more deeply on the theological significance of the events and of Jesus. Academic scholars have tended to write off John as "well the synoptic gospels are somewhat historical in content and actually reflect the words of Jesus, whereas John is just some Christian guy writing decades later who wrote down his own beliefs about Jesus and put them into the mouth of Jesus, and John and Paul together hold radically different views to the original Jesus himself depicted in the synoptic gospels." For whatever reason, the Jesus depicted in John's gospel talks a great deal more about himself and generally seems to think a great deal more of himself in terms of viewing himself as divine or semi-divine (whereas in the synoptics Jesus predominantly describes himself as a "prophet" like the prophets of Israel's past). This difference is sometimes summed up as "Jesus preached the Kingdom, whereas Paul [and John] preached Jesus" reflecting the way that Paul and John tend to focus on Jesus the person to the exclusion of his message while Jesus himself in the synoptics tended to focus on his message to the exclusion of talking about himself. The gospel of John contains several sections of rambling theological ideas that kind of seem added as interludes between the events in the story.

A difficulty in interpreting John is working out what some of the terms he uses mean to him. For example, when people in the bible use the word "salvation" there are lots of different things they mean in different parts of the bible - most often in the OT they mean rescue from enemies. There's a tendency modern readers have to interpret certain theological keywords (salvation, faith, grace, works, justification, the gospel, the kingdom of God, born again, etc) in certain ways with certain loaded meanings. These are often seen as "evangelical" terms, and if someone uses one of them then they are assumed to be referring to "the gospel" as evangelicals understand it. Did the writer of John see those terms as having the same meanings as evangelicals today tend to use them? I doubt it. Was the writer referring to the same things that pop into modern evangelical's minds when they see those keywords in his text? I doubt it. In John 3, where Jesus is talking to Nicodemus, we get one of those theological rambles that is quite loaded with theological keywords, and whose overall meaning is sometimes unclear - even in the passage itself Nicodemus' responses are pretty much along the lines of "Huh?" "Huh?"

We're not told at all in the text as to whether Nicodemus ultimately followed Jesus words, or whether he was "born again", or whether he gave most of his money away, or much anything else. He has the conversation with Jesus in John 3 because he respects Jesus and believes that Jesus' miracles mean he must be doing God's work. Later he appears again to respectfully bury Jesus with the honors royalty would normally be given, so he obviously still greatly admires and respects Jesus. But we don't know much else about him. Perhaps he is the Rich Young Ruler that the synoptics describe as respectfully asking Jesus for instructions on how to live, and then declining to follow them, being unwilling to be 'born again' (as John puts it) and give away his possessions and enter the world anew with nothing. Or perhaps he is not that same person, but is like them. Or perhaps he did indeed give much of his money to charity but still had more than enough remaining to give Jesus a royal burial. Frankly, who knows... there's little point in speculating about what isn't said, and not much to be gained by saying "at the particular time X, why didn't Jesus talk about issue Y?"

[Cow Poke]

Is your question essentially, "why doesn't Jesus always, at every single time and opportunity, talk about wealth and poverty?"

No, when he was talking to Nicodemus, Nick was asking about eternal life. Jesus explained it without a single time mentioning finances. You think Jesus, the Son of God, didn't KNOW that Nick was wealthy? And, Nick, having been a follower of Jesus (though probably not publicly) was STILL wealthy when Jesus died.

Because, he talks about it a loooooooot.

So do many modern evangelists... in fact, they want to loot the sheep!

Like, a lot, a lot, a lot, a lot. To the point where it's basically the biggest theme in the gospels.

Um.... no.

So, I'm scratching my head

Because it itches?

as to what a "hah, well he didn't talk about it 100% of the time, so there!" approach gains you.

Well, since that's not my position, the rest of your post shall be ignored. As I have sufficiently demonstrated, not just a few people who were very close to Jesus were wealthy, and He apparently didn't badger them about giving away all their money.

It's about priorities, SL. If your money or possessions own you, they need to go. If you own possessions, and understand the priority of service, it appears all is well.

[Sparko]

It should be illegal to discriminate against atheists on the basis of their lack of religion for the same reason it's illegal to discriminate against others on the basis of their religion. Pretty simple.

You didn't answer the questions. Do you want a giant comprehensive list of groups that can't be discriminated against? Every possible scenario? If not, where do you draw the line?

[Bill the Cat]

Your arbitrary and emphatic demands amuse me

Mk 12:15-17
"Bring me a denarius and let me look at it."
They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose image is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied.
Then Jesus said to them, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's"

So, on that subject, what proportion of the notes in your wallet have "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE - THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" printed on them? Try some rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

Hahaha-No-Tumblr-21.gif

[RumTumTugger]

Your arbitrary and emphatic demands amuse me

Mk 12:15-17
"Bring me a denarius and let me look at it."
They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose image is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied.
Then Jesus said to them, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's"

So, on that subject, what proportion of the notes in your wallet have "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE - THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" printed on them? Try some rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

who was he talking to here and why did he really answer the way he did Starlight this is where understanding the TRUE CONTEXT of a given verse matter not taking a truncated verstion to force it into the mold you want.

Here is Starlight's truncated quote in it's biblical context. During a time that Jesus's was teaching a few parables that told what would happen to those like the Pharisees. the Pharisees were angry and wanted some way to get to him.

Mar 12:12 And they sought to lay hands on Him, but feared the multitude, for they knew He had spoken the parable against them. So they left Him and went away.
Mar 12:13 Then they sent to Him some of the Pharisees and the Herodians, to catch Him in His words

hmm so the Pharisees were plotting against Jesus trying to figure out a way to get him some how. hmm what did they do

Mar 12:14 When they had come, they said to Him, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and care about no one; for You do not regard the person of men, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?
Mar 12:15 “Shall we pay, or shall we not pay?” But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, “Why do you test Me? Bring Me a denarius that I may see it.”

oh right asked a trick question that a yes or no answer would piss off either his Jewish followers or the Romans trying to get him in trouble but as you can see Jesus was on to them.
and here we get to the part Starlight truncated. cutting out the main teaching of Jesus

Mar 12:16 So they brought it. And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”
Mar 12:17 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at Him.

So instead of this being a teaching to give to give the government money it is Jesus showing the Pharisees for who they were hypocrites.

In the context of this conversation Starlight has been saying we should give the money to the government so the government can help the poor. And all he can pull up is Jesus's answer to a trick question.

Now for a history lesson which is needed to show the true context of this verse. Class can anyone tell me where the money went when paying tribute to Ceaser? yes KG I see your hand is up. right it went directly to Ceaser for his use not to the poor
Yes BTC you are right help for poor and needy came from those around them not the government there were no governmental agencies to feed the poor back in those times it was not something that was thought till centuries later. and not done very well by any government I've seen so far.

So what Starlight is saying here is that Jesus said we should give our money to the rich to use on themselves instead of helping the poor and needy.

So Starlight can you show where Jesus says to set up governments to feed the poor and needy instead of individuals and individual organizations voluntarily doing it?

[Sam]

You didn't answer the questions. Do you want a giant comprehensive list of groups that can't be discriminated against? Every possible scenario? If not, where do you draw the line?

The fact that it's difficult to draw the line somewhere doesn't mean that it can't be drawn anywhere and a progression toward equality is better than a regression away from it. We know that people are being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation often enough that it's a very serious problem leading to greatly diminished quality of life outcomes. If there's another group that requires a similar legal protection, I'll support that.

You, on the other hand, will hold pretty dearly to extant anti-discrimination laws that protect your favored groups while denying the same protection to other groups facing extensively-documented discrimination. Unless you're willing to push for a repeal of laws protecting Christians from discrimination, your position can be boiled down to "I got mine, you go pound sand".

[Sparko]

The fact that it's difficult to draw the line somewhere doesn't mean that it can't be drawn anywhere and a progression toward equality is better than a regression away from it. We know that people are being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation often enough that it's a very serious problem leading to greatly diminished quality of life outcomes. If there's another group that requires a similar legal protection, I'll support that.

You, on the other hand, will hold pretty dearly to extant anti-discrimination laws that protect your favored groups while denying the same protection to other groups facing extensively-documented discrimination. Unless you're willing to push for a repeal of laws protecting Christians from discrimination, your position can be boiled down to "I got mine, you go pound sand".

What laws protecting Christians from discrimination? Have you read the news over the last few years where Christians were fined for following their faith? Forced to perform marriages or allow anyone to use their facilities? To make wedding cakes, etc?

The constitution merely says that there can be no state-run church and that the federal government cannot make any laws AGAINST freedom of religion. It says nothing about private discrimination.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof - that's all it says.