people are of course stuburn and selfish to say ,as Orwell did, that all love is selfish is not true
some love is selfish would be more correct
because i believe and have seen that not all love is selfish
and also people can choose to be not selfish
I figured you would take that approach, but my comments were mostly geared towards those taking the "people are naturally stubborn and selfish" approach. If that is true, then where did teachings about love come from?
it is probably better describe this way
you can not serve love and serve money at the same time without following one and forsaking the other
Actually, that is basically how it is worded. I suppose you are questioning the word "serve" as opposed to the word "work" which I used. Here is the whole verse.
Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
it is not saying that you cannot have both at the same time
it is saying that love is not greedy
and that being greedy is not loving
that is why they ar incompatible
No, it is not saying that you cannot have both at the same time, but then again, the issue isn't about having money, it's about how you get that money. It is saying that you will show who you love by who, or what, you give your time to. He says that you will love one and hate the other. Which do you hate, Dredric?
You see, it works like this. Let's pretend you are a Christian and you are employed at McDonalds. While performing your duties you decide to do a bit of witnessing on the side, like talking to customers about God/Jesus, or whatever. Many Christians call this their "on the job" witness.
However, preaching was not part of the job description when you were hired, and most likely you did not tell your employer that a freedom to preach clause would be required before you accept the job. This means that if you preach on McDonalds time, you are doing a DIFFERENT job to what McDonalds hired you to do, or, in other words, you are showing your contempt for them by expecting them to pay you while you do work that does not benefit them. This is especially true considering that MOST people have to witness "on the job" secretly because they know their employers would ask them not to for fear that it could offend some customers. It's great that you want to witness, but it's still cheating on McDonalds.
On the other hand, if you claim to be a Christian, and yet you go off to do work OTHER than preach the gospel, then in the same way you show your contempt for God by expecting his salvation while you do work OTHER than what he told you to do. I dare say that people who try to serve both masters end up fitting into the category of "luke warm" described in Revelation 3. The author of that particular verse said that these luke warm people, who want the benefits of being a Christian AND the luxuries of serving mammon make God sick. (btw, mammon is a word to describe money and the things money can buy)
as for this one -"Whoever does not forsake all he has cannot be my follower."
if you desire the things that you own more than GOD you will follow your possesions
Is the verse talking about desire? I certainly did nail it when I stated that I knew you would react to these teachings! For example, if the admin of this site said "anyone who does not properly log in cannot post on the forum" would you then go on to tell yourself that what he really means is that as long as you believe in your heart that you've really logged in, then yo don't need to actually log in? You see, it's not friendly piece of advice from a sweety pie savior. It's worded as a command. If you don't do it, then you don't get into the club.
Regarding your correction to Jesus; it sounds to me like you are adding an interpretation to what the verse is actually saying that takes the edge off. I find this interesting because it gives me the impression that you've probably never read the chapter from which it comes. You can find it in Luke 14. The reason I say it is interesting is because just about the whole chapter is dedicated to teaching about "counting the cost". In other words, Jesus elaborates, in great detail, about the need to be sure that, if you are going to follow him, that you are prepared to go the whole distance. Just after the "whosoever does not forsake all he has" command, Jesus goes on to say this...
Luk 14:34 Salt [is] good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?
Luk 14:35 It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; [but] men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
If you take the sting out of his teachings (i.e. it's only something you think about in your heart, as opposed to something you actually DO) then Jesus is saying here that the teachings are no longer fit for shit.
as for the next one - "Sell what you have and give it to the poor."
Jesus was conversing with a specific person called the rich young ruler
the rich young ruler put his riches as the most important things in his life
Jesus was testing him to see if he was ready to follow him.
This is one of the oldest tricks in the book for Christians who can't imagine what it's like to actually obey Jesus. How the hell can you say that you are prepared, as a Christian, to lay your life down, Dredric, when you spew crap like this? I don't mind getting a bit strong with you here because this message is taught all throughout the new testament; it's one of the single most important values in the Kingdom of heaven and it's like a slap in the face to hear you dismiss it so carelessly.
To the pharisees he said...
Luk 11:41 But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.
To his disciples he said...
Luk 12:33 Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.
Luk 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
To the guests at a dinner party...
Luk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
To the rich he said...
Luk 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
Oh, and don't forget about his followers after he was gone...
Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Act 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need.
Act 4:34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
Act 4:35 And laid [them] down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
Only for that one specific guy, you say? You sure do know how to put your foot in your mouth, Dredric.
in reference to this -"When someone hits you on one cheek, turn to him the other."
a more correct interpertation would be
"When someone hurts you it is better for them to hurt you again than you to take revenge on them that is greater that they desurve"
I agree with the first part of your sentence, up until the part "that is greater than they deserve". I think we've already seen a fair bit of evidence that you have a tendency to insert an interpretation into the teachings of Jesus that appears to favor a personal bias you have, so that a teaching that says "If people try to fight with you, don't get involved in the whole vicious cycle of fighting back, but rather, be prepared to make some personal sacrifices in order to stop the vicious cycle", gets changed to, "feel free to use knives and guns if you feel the need to defend yourself; just don't stab or shoot the guy more than he deserves". No wonder the world laughs at Christianity.
Over on the ethics thread I am chatting with Trace about religion and trying to get him to see that religion itself is not the problem, but rather the people who make up the religion. I feel you are a perfect example of what it is about religion that annoys him so. You come here challenging the whole forum by wanting to "help people" to understand that there really is a God, but when it comes to showing a really powerful example of his existence (i.e. a willingness for you to make some personal sacrifices) you suddenly lose your back bone and rely on guns and knives, as though that is the real truth that Jesus came to bring to the world.
and for the last one - 'When people tell lies about you and say all manner of evil against you for my names sake, rejoice
it is more correct to say - "It is better to rejoice than to curse them because in the end everyone will be juged accourding to what evil they have done"
so you would rejoice knowing that the person that hurt you would in the end be judged justly
You are a real piece of work, Dre. I quoted Jesus word for word, but it seems you feel you know better than him. The gospel according to Dredric: "don't be upset when people are nasty to you; instead rejoice in knowing that in the end they'll get exactly what they deserve!"
You've totally missed the point of "for my names sake". Jesus asked people to love one another. That means that IF
people are acting "for his names sake" then they are acting in love. If others come around saying nasty things about those actions, then the Christians have a reason to be happy in knowing that the accusations are false; there is no real case against love. It could also acts as evidence that the Christians are probably doing something right, because the accusers will probably be reacting in that "normal human selfishness" that Orwell described so eloquently earlier, and feel convicted by the kind of love that Jesus came to teach.
It is definitely NOT a teaching about feeling justified that people who hurt us at some time in the past will "get what they deserve" for it.