The Ever Famous 'Eye of The Needle' Quote

Post Reply New Topic

Well, there is some point, but it just is incorrect in the framework of the religion, because the ethics that Christianity puts forward end up putting some weight onto subjective factors rather than rules that must always be obeyed.


Well... I think that would be a misinterpretation of Christianity to say that people will go to hell for living as best they can. The issue is that I think it is a misinterpretation of Christianity to claim that it is supposed to be an easy thing where people can have the good life in this world. I would think that there is more evidence that Christianity had apocalyptic elements, and that there was a radical tendency to seek to overthrow the current order of things. I mean, Jesus did tell his followers to take up their cross daily and to follow him(Luke 9:23), and that nothing in the world was as important as seeking God.(Matt 16:26) To some extent, Christianity has within itself, the claim to be a special calling and a tension with society, as it rejects the ways of the world. (1 Cor 3:19) So, really, I am not sure I agree with your intuition there. It probably isn't entirely wrong, as I would doubt that every person is called to live in utter poverty, but the question to counter your question is whether or not people are fully considering the needs and desires of others in their lives, as there is the issue of whether or not people spend too much on themselves and not enough on others, because Christians are to love all others as much as they love themselves. (Matt 22:39)


Hmm.... I think part of the issue with this is that an often Christian idea is that people are meant to take joy in God, and so enjoying wealth is seen rather negatively. As Jesus is noted for telling people not to treasure things on earth, but rather to treasure God.(Matt 6:19-21)

Well, in Christianity, there is actually a tension between the church and the ways of the world. So, that part really depends on the idea you are putting forward.

Well.... I don't think that Christian attacks on wealth were just "we hate wealthy people" as many figures in the Old Testament were wealthy, Job before and after his trial by God was wealthy, but rather they go back to issues of marginal utility, as the wealthy are perceived as not doing the good things for God that they should. This can partially be seen in Mark 12:41-44, where the widow put in a few coins, and Jesus proclaims that she gave more than all of the wealthy people who donated. Another issue is that Christianity was literally against the culture of the time to favor those who were marginalized in society, as Jesus was known for eating with sinners(Matt 9:10), and he was rejecting the values of that society, which is problematic as most wealthy people are to some extent maintaining the traditional values of their society, but the Christian message can be taken as being at odds with these traditions by representing a different framework for society, and so the tension is the realistic application by people to their own society.

This is partially just my interpretation of the religion though, and I am sure that some people will have somewhat different perspectives(depending upon interpretation, selection of verses, philosophical frameworks, etc). Getting more perspectives might be beneficial, particularly depending upon your philosophical perspective, as the more perspectives you get, the more you will be able to see how things would look the best, as Christians do tend to vary on the specifics of things, even dramatically at times, but the issue depends on core issues rather than incidental themes.

I guess I wasn't thinking any such framework existed in a deliberate sense, more along the lines of human beings realizing that a movement needed surface and some control to survive.



I guess I really meant that along the line that they're doing the best they can to live up to their beliefs - ie. the balance that they've wrestled out between direct teaching of religion vs. their own observations of reality and where they fall inbetween with the best of intentions.



Since we're all built so inherently different though, my dissonance is usually with the idea that everyone's even meant to have the same path. The reason I believe in more capitalist forces within an economy than socialist (or at least a 2/3 to 1/3 ratio) is that capitalism when checked flows with human nature and human differences rather than trying to break something that seems imuttable. Just like I can't figure God wanting to break us down into what we aren't or turn on our own best natural assets, talents, particularly when he set the laws of the universe into play and fundamentally sets our zones in which we individually are at our best. Some people are cut out to be great humanitarians, some people are cut out to be great musicians, some to be politicians, some to be employers, etc. etc.. Its that kind of thing that makes me think he's alluding to something more abstract - ie. follow me spiritually, follow me with your mind, follow me with your heart, follow me with your soul - though its still very difficult to know what exactly that means it seems like the general sense of that seems to be a call to spiritual self-development and yes, building faith. The reason it seems difficult to translate it all into today's action and culture is that a) certain things were done and asked of people for the simple fact that Jesus was talking to them and his presence was profound as well as b) there were different problems with different norms and different ideas that had to be battled by their own prescribed medicines. Thus most people will try to figure out where they're following the spirit of his teachings and work from that model rather than trying to hug the literal as much. Even love thy neighbor - it seems cut and dry on the face of it until the question comes up 'How are you called to manifest that love and to what degree and capacity? Some could take that to being the mom/dad for everyone in their lives, some would argue more tough love than compassion, while others would argue it could mean outward ambivalence as long as you'd save their life if the need arose.



I personally wonder how strictly that's meant though. I've had a life-long obsession with music, very healthy and motivating one fortunately, and while I can really dial into a track and feel the mechanics of it in a way that's very uncanny I can quite often feel like I'm tapped into a pool of consciousness much more cavernous and broad than human consciousness alone - just like many pieces of music seem like they resonate the sublime nature of God from their core. Its a hard one to really explain, even more so to explain it and not sound like a nut, but you probably get my idea - its hard to imagine having proclivities like that, knowing plenty of people who are very religious and have very passionate interests in one topic or another. It seems like God articulates into what he created; ie. reality, truth, the universe, kind of like we're probing his reality whether we know it or not and are doing so constantly in all kinds of endeavors.



Yeah, that was a very poignant example. When I read it in Mark I got the impression that while both donations were appreciated, the widow's came with more sacrifice and said a lot about her level of faith and devotion. What I do remember of reading the gospels again recently is just how much the authors hammered on the Jewish social customs and rules of the times and it sounded though like they had to do a lot of very drastic things to get from point A which is having a group of people think they can get into heaven via laws and point B - getting people to believe that they can only get in through faith.

Oh, well, I was just suggesting the idea that Christianity was relatively non-Kantian, and would perhaps be better described as a virtue ethics idea.


The issue involved here is that morality is not observed, and the major religious claims are moral. So, if you are suggesting massive changes to the moral fabric, then this is problematic, but if you are suggesting that people just don't do the feet washing thing if people don't want to have feet washing, then sure, that's absolutely fine.(Some primitive baptists still wash feet)



Well, I will admit that Christianity allows for some variation, but on matters that are not already claimed by morality. If you personally feel uncomfortable eating animals, then you are free to not eat meat. If you distrust alcohol, then don't touch it. But, some issues are somewhat obligatory or prohibited.

As for natural talents? Umm.... well, I don't think that there is much of a problem unless the talent is prostitution, assassination, or deception.(not all inclusive, but you get the idea) Not only that, but if your point was that not everyone should go around and go to orphanages, well... sure. If your point is that some people might actually do better giving up financial contributions rather than joining a monastery, well, absolutely fine. If your point is that some people are fine just sitting on their sofa and just living their life as they see fit, then that probably is less fine. Not everyone has to do the same thing. Some people probably are more in need of help than capable of giving it. But, all who can give are obligated to do so to a point where it shows true devotion. I don't have a copy of CS Lewis's Mere Christianity on me, but I believe he said that people should tithe until it hurts(as opposed to just giving the spare nickels) but not until they are destitute.

The "love thy neighbor" thing is somewhat difficult, but the ultimate issue is trying. I mean, I think that a bigger part of the message isn't that there are certain ideal actions, but rather that people should generally put a solid effort in. Let's say that a person in California is told by a trusted companion that they need to dig a ditch to Nevada to irrigate the desert so that it might grow crops and help his fellow man. Well, the idea is absurd, but let's say our person generally tries to make sure it is a good idea, and then spends the rest of his life digging this massive ditch. Have they done a good thing? Well, it was stupid, it helped nobody, but they had the right intention and did the best they could do with their low level of intelligence that prevented them from knowing whether this ditch was a bad/useless task. So I think that from a Christian perspective, this person would be seen as serving God, even though what they had done was an utter waste. I'd think the same follows for "love thy neighbor" to some reasonable extent. Does this help? I don't want to misunderstand something.


HA HA HA HA!! !

Well, I think the real issue here is that you don't make this music an idol, or something that keeps you from God and prevents you from doing His work. Certainly, if this love of music manifested into a talent for creating music, or picking it, then it would probably be a good thing. If a love of economics manifested into an eye for research or an ability to pick stocks, then that would be a good thing too. Worshiping music itself would not be a good idea so much though.


Well, it is not as if a donation will be hated but only the widow's donation was commented on with praise. I mean, the point of marginal utility is still valid, while it does not attack being wealthy, nor does it claim anything about governmental tax laws.

Right, I do think it is somewhat proper to argue that Jesus was attacking the legalistic religion of the Pharisees of the time, and so his emphasis upon faith is telling.