Tuesday, 16 June 2009
-
Scriptural Literalism: Do You Disobey Christ by Keeping Your Wealth?
The succinct chat Jesus had with a rich and devout young man gives much to ponder. Most Christians in the West, especially when compared with poorer societies, are easily described as rich and devout, if not young, men. So, this is aimed at the general Christian or sincere seeker after spiritual truth.I have wiggle room, possibly hypocritically, as I do not hold that scripture is to be taken literally. Indeed, it is the last way to take it. However, I cannot see how those who adhere to the modern day heresy of scriptural literalism can wiggle out of having to give all they have to the poor in order to follow Christ.
There are a couple of alternatives open to literalists:
- such clear directives from Christ Himself should be taken at face value. This not only a problem for Christians with money but also for those with two shirts. No one said it was easy.
- such clear directives from Christ Himself can be taken allegorically, which because the teachings and acts of Christ Himself are paramount, means that any scripture can be taken allegorically.
Therefore, to take as an example, the insistence of scriptural literalists that the two Creation narratives are to be taken literally (a problem in itself, seeing as they conflict in part), such literalists have to also take Christ's words literally or be guilty of overt disingenuousness and blatant hypocrisy.
The natural consequence, is to then wonder why should such people be taken seriously on interpretation if they ignore the words of Christ Himself in order to hold on to their wealth, whether relative or not.
Reasonable questions to those who insist on literal interpretation in order to be thought a true believer:
Do you have any money in the bank?
and if they insist that Christ's teaching can be taken allegorically:
Then, why insist on the literal interpretation of relatively unimportant passages, such as those on Creation?In essence, I do not see how scriptural literalism can sit easy with having personal wealth. And by wealth, I mean having two pairs of shoes when others have to go barefoot.
-
recommend
- recs 1
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: Lovegrove@xanga
- Name: Lovegrove
- About Me: Moral ponderer by choice, optimist by nature, pessimist by experience.sceptic by necessity. Uncertain as to what's going on and about received explanations. Hopeful of a few proposals but rarely of proponents or implementation. Consequently, hesitant to commit but content to remain a fellow traveller. Reasonably civilised and principled but probably a hypocrite. Mildly ascetic leanings with reprobate tendencies. Dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum, ummmm, cogito.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 1 Views: 0 479 Comments: 0 46 View all posts by Lovegrove@xanga
Comments (46)
Not all scripture is in the same literary style.
I don't answer to Christ on my money or anything else but it is in my nature to be generous with those in need and I am an advocate of social justice and contribute to causes that support and promote those things.
I have always loved that one time, in a conversation with one person, which is recorded in only one gospel, Jesus said that "you must be born again," and we make that the litmus test for Christianity, while one time, in a conversation with one person, which is recorded in only one gospel, Jesus said that, "you must sell all you have and give the money to the poor, and then follow me," and we are quite certain that it could not possibly apply to all believers.
If everyone gave away their money then everyone would be poor. Who would then be able to help the poor?
Confucius say:
"Get snotty nose out of Bible long enough to use ol' noggin (the intellect). Then once noggin gets up steam, wipe snotty nose and put it back in Bible.
@LoBornlite@xanga - If everyone gave away their money then everyone would be poor. Who would then be able to help the poor?
That is perhaps the stupidest argument I've ever heard. If they're not going to help the poor in the first place, why would they save their money so they could help the poor later on?
@TheGreatBout@xanga - Exactly. I hate the "Should we/should we not take scripture literal" debate. It's simply a false dichotomy. Nobody takes everything literally or everything figuratively/metaphorically.
It's like saying "should I/should I not take everything said to me literally?" If someone tells me to 'go take a hike' they're probably not speaking literally. If someone refers to me as a snake, they probably don't literally think I'm a snake. If they ask me for 20 dollars, they're probably not speaking figuratively. As with scripture, we have to take each statement on its own merit.
A third option is also available; (in the Spirit) meditate on the scripture in its context and purpose.
While mocking all persons who would take the scripture at face value may be fun, it does a great discredit to open and intelligent discussion.
In reading this post I could not detect any real question other than rhetorical one's, I thought perhaps it might be good to address the last statement which said that questions concering "creation" are unimportant.
Perhaps a more beneficial post for you to submit next time could be something along the lines of "Is the belief in Creation important/beneficial/ or destructive to the Christian faith?"
Then you can disguss the pros/cons of disguising calling God a liar with fancy terms like "allegorical" and such.
@deepestrecesses - //A third option is also available; (in the Spirit) meditate on the scripture in its context and purpose.//
Ah... and how do we test the validity of the results from such an exercise?
@QuantumStorm@xanga - If by 'test' you mean 'prove', then there is no possible way to do so (until we make a time machine :D).
Jesus did, however, mention the testing of the fruits quite often. Perhaps it would be good to examine the "fruits" that both arguements produce; this was why I suggest an additional post on the topic.
Questions could be asked concerning the ramifications of "figuratively" taking scriptures into account-- will that "cut to the bone" as the Hebrews text says? On the other hand you could ask questions about the affects that taking things at face-value will have upon the faith as a whole; will people find an error? or will it force people to study more closely to ensure proper and wholelistic understandings of the scriptures?
@deepestrecesses - In other words, your proposed solution is ineffective as there is no way to demonstrate the validity of its results; am I correct?
@QuantumStorm@xanga - No. There simply is no "solution" (at least for what you're asking) on the face of the planet that can answer the question "was the earth created?" except to accept the scriptures at face value. If we decide not to accept it at face value, that, then, becomes a very ineffective solution because we are left with 0 answers.
My "proposed solution" still stands (only for those who decide to place their faith in the scriptures, however, It's not a valid option for someone who does not believe in the scriptures. Just to clear that up).
@deepestrecesses - If your proposed solution were valid, then can you explain why there are so many interpretations, some contradictory in nature, that also purport to use your solution? If all of these interpretations (looking at the various Protestant denominations, for instance) claim to adhere to a path similar or identical to your solution, yet various interpretations and disagreements arise, who is producing valid results and who is not? After all, consistency is important, no?
@QuantumStorm@xanga - I have a feeling we are no longer discussing the topic at hand. lol
1 Cor. 11:9 "No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval". As "unpopular" as it is to say this-- not every denomination as a whole is correct (in fact, find me one that is? lol). I was not talking about denominations or theologies, which seem to have done nothing but disrupt and destroy the Church Body.
To answer your question (to the best of my ability) these different interpretations that seem to contradict one another, all while claiming to adhere to the same idea that I proposed, only serve to distinguish between those who are following Christ in His Spirit.
Part of the reason why Paul warned Timothy to "avoid foolish controversies" was because Paul foresaw the danger that came along with having a Church Body that divided the scriptures against istself.
@deepestrecesses - Well, I'm simply trying to follow your line of reasoning from the original point on your solution, so to speak.
//To answer your question (to the best
of my ability) these different interpretations that seem to contradict
one another, all while claiming to adhere to the same idea that I
proposed, only serve to distinguish between those who are following
Christ in His Spirit. //
Ah, I see. When you speak of distinguishing between believers, are you meaning in terms of separating the true believers from the false prophets, or in the sense of a mosaic or a multi-faceted approach, in which there are different facets/approaches to the same truth?
@QuantumStorm@xanga - Yes, that is correct. I meant, as Paul meant, to separate or distinguish between a follower of Christ with the Spirit, and a "false prophet".
lol this online-discussion thing is very difficult as it is hard to "follow the line of reasoning" from other people, but I'm working on it.
I'm not a fan of dogged hyper-literalism, but I don't think one of its tenets is ignoring context. Someone could be an absolute literalist and just point out that Jesus is talking to an individual, not speaking a generality for all people. Consider Lk 19 where salvation comes to Zacchaeus' house even though he doesn't give ALL of his wealth away. Even the disciples had a collective purse.
There are plenty of good arguments against strict literalism. I don't see this post as one of them. It's more of a mischaracterization of their position imo.
@Theophilus166@xanga - If everyone gave away their money then everyone would be poor. Who would then be able to help the poor?
That is perhaps the stupidest argument I've ever heard.
If you can't make sense out of what is simple than you are certainly no judge of what is stupid.
@LoBornlite@xanga - It definitely makes sense if someone is trying to justify not having to give up their money. But it sure doesn't make sense as a way to take care of the poor.
@Theophilus166@xanga - It definitely makes sense if someone is trying to justify not having to give up their money.
Only if you think negatively. Godly thinking is positive. God creates out of nothing. Likewise vast amounts wealth can be created out of nothing. Vast amounts of wealth mean vast opportunities to do charity.
Wealthy people are the most generous of people. The Gilligan's Island view of the wealthy has been swallowed hook, line and sinker by people who should know better.
@LoBornlite@xanga - Perhaps Jesus should have better explained that to the rich young ruler. "Go and sell some of your stuff, but don't give it all, because then you'll have nothing left to give. After all, the wealthy people are the most generous givers!"
@Theophilus166@xanga - Perhaps Jesus should have better explained that to the rich young ruler.
No! Jesus explained exactly what he needed to. The young ruler had a disordered attachment to his wealth and Jesus told him to give it up. Jesus was not making a proclaimation against wealth.
@LoBornlite@xanga - I agree with you there, that Jesus was not making a universal proclamation on wealth. However, he said a LOT about wealth and money. I think we too quickly read that passage and our first statement is 'Jesus wasn't saying money is bad....' We don't even entertain the idea that Jesus might want us to part with our money as well, and our first reaction is to put our minds at ease that Jesus isn't requiring that of us. However, I still think the argument that everyone shouldn't give to the poor because then nobody would have money to take care of the poor is a rather bogus argument, and is intended to justify wealth more than it has the interests of the poor at heart.
@Theophilus166@xanga - However, I still think the argument that everyone shouldn't give to the poor because then nobody would have money to take care of the poor is a rather bogus argument
The argument is not that everyone shouldn't give to the poor. The argument is that everyone should sell everthing they have and give it to the poor. That philosophy would destroy civil society and send us all back to the cave where we would live short, miserable, brutal lives.
@LoBornlite@xanga - I believe that's what they call a 'slippery slope.'
@deepestrecesses - No worries. We'll figure this out together
//I meant, as Paul meant, to separate or distinguish between a follower of Christ with the Spirit, and a "false prophet". //
Okay. If this is the case, which of the churches, or interpretations, if you will, is based on false prophecy, and which is based on the Spirit?
@QuantumStorm@xanga - Baits hook. Puts hook in water. How come I get yelled at when I go down this path? Your profile picture must be more soothing.