Why Do Christians Worship Greed?

[kuzadd]

Or have they been so co-opted by big business interests, they just can't see past the fact they have always been manipulated for other ends

Only in America can one find significant numbers of Christians who argue that unfettered capitalism represents God's Plan for human thriving.

Yup, I am sure that is exactly what God had in mind for his children

Because Americans live in a kind of perceptual bubble -- a bubble related to but not identical to financial bubbles of recent memory -- we have never seen the full extent of the devastation wrought by the "Washington consensus" on the lives of others and on the life of the planet itself. We've never seen the effects of the global sweatshop up close; we've never seen what privatized water markets look like in places like Bolivia; we've never asked whether there might be a connection between NAFTA's effects within Mexico and the urgent need of Mexicans to reach El Norte, even risking death by dehydration to get here.

Free market fundamentalism seemed to work out pretty well for us. To be sure, we could see the enormous wealth beginning to concentrate at the top of our own society. But as long as enough trickled down to us plebeians (and as long as we could get easy credit to keep up with those Joneses) we were okay with it. It is only now that the latest and largest financial bubble has burst that we are beginning to break through our perceptual bubble to wonder whether entrusting our fates to self-interested and unregulated moneymen was really such a great idea.

Why sure it was, cause God says Greed is Good, he preaches that all the time, in the bible. Just you read it!

Only in America can one find significant numbers of serious Christian theologians who will still argue that unfettered capitalism represents God's Plan for human thriving. Calvin College has made something of a specialty of defending entrepreneurship and acquisitive individualism in theological terms, but Calvin's theological point-people are hardly alone in this.

besides theologians? There are always think tanks to equate god and acquisition.

And then there are the unserious theologians (or should I say unserious non-theologians?) who just can't keep themselves from putting a godly gloss on Mammon's ravenings. The latest shallow screed of this kind comes from one Jay W. Richards, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation (formerly of the Discovery Institute) whose just-published Money, Greed, and God has picked up purplish plaudits from the likes of George Gilder and Michael Novak (and just how 1980s is that?).

Richards' association with the Discovery Institute in particular may provide a key insight.

Thou shalt covet they neighbours goods!

[August1991]

Uh, are Hindus, Muslims, atheists, agnostics any less greedy than Christians?

Buddhists claim to follow precepts that deny greed but then - we just saw in Sri Lanka a massacre over land and Cambodia was the scene of horrific massacre.

----

IMV, greed is synonym for self-interest. IOW, people tend to seek out the best arrangement for themselves. For example, most people want to marry someone who will make them happy. Is it greedy to choose your own happiness when seeking a mate? After all, why choose someone who will make you unhappy?

[tango]

Uh, are Hindus, Muslims, atheists, agnostics any less greedy than Christians?

Buddhists claim to follow precepts that deny greed but then - we just saw in Sri Lanka a massacre over land and Cambodia was the scene of horrific massacre.

----

IMV, greed is synonym for self-interest. IOW, people tend to seek out the best arrangement for themselves. For example, most people want to marry someone who will make them happy. Is it greedy to choose your own happiness when seeking a mate? After all, why choose someone who will make you unhappy?

IMV it isn't about the Hindu, Muslim or Christian people or beliefs.

But I do believe some religious institutions always associate themselves with power, and support our current greed-driven economy that funnels the wealth of the people to the wealthiest people.

Some religious institutions support those who support them, regardless of the source of the wealth.

[WIP]

IMV, greed is synonym for self-interest.

Which is why allowing unfettered capitalism results in booms, followed by bust cycles, and an unhealthy income gap between the rich and everyone else. Altruism is also a human trait. But it doesn't seem to have high value among economic libertarians, Christian conservatives, and it is even considered to be harmful according to the whacked out Objectivists who read all of the Ayn Rand books.

IOW, people tend to seek out the best arrangement for themselves. For example, most people want to marry someone who will make them happy. Is it greedy to choose your own happiness when seeking a mate? After all, why choose someone who will make you unhappy?

So you think marriage is just about achieving your own selfish best interests? Doesn't sound like the foundation for a good marriage to me!

[WIP]

Some religious institutions support those who support them, regardless of the source of the wealth.

In a nutshell, it starts with the theological approach the church takes on the old free will/determinism conundrum. The Abrahamic religions all have a built in paradox because despite the dogma that God is supposed to be all-knowing, including knowing the future -- man is supposed to be imbued with free will and has complete independence over his choices in life. For the free will churches, this provides their defense against the Problem of Evil -- they had their choice, and chose to reject salvation and sin and go to hell....and this supposedly gets God off the hook for creating a system of eternal torture for finite crimes here on earth. And since man has free will, this also implies that, in a free country like America, they are lazy and just lacked the ambition to succeed that enterprizing millionaires have. The rich made the free will choice of becoming rich, and the poor made the free will choice of being destitute and living in misery. The churches that support a strong interpretation of human free will include those influenced by the teachings of John Wesley, and descended from a rival of John Calvin named Jacob Arminius. So the Baptist and Methodist churches that played such a big role in forming an American theology, lean strongly towards the free will approach, and that is also the seed of the "you get what you deserve" nonchalant attitude about the wealth gap.

The other side, represented by John Calvin and Martin Luther in particular, believed that human free will could not conflict with the omniscience and omnipotence of the creator. They believed strongly in predestination, because if God knows everything, and knows everything that is going to happen in the future, he has to know everything that we are going to do in our lives. Salvation is not chosen by the individual, but granted by God. John Calvin taught that God chose who was to be saved, and who would be sent to hell before he created the world in the first place....since his perfect knowledge of the future means that he had to know all future events, including who goes to heaven, and who goes to hell. The Catholic Church tried to incorporate free will, but still declares Grace to be pre-eminent, so whatever free will we have, is limited according to Catholic theology. It's worth noting that until modern times, the problem of a just, all-loving creator sending people to hell, was not considered to be an ethical dilemma --- God could just do what he damn well pleased, and no man had the right to think, let alone ask, if God was acting in a just manner.

Theologians over the centuries have created a number of compatibalist attempts to harmonize predestination and free will. The irony here regarding money and wealth, is that the old fashioned predestination churches are less likely to view the rich favourably, as having received a blessing from God than the free will believers. They don't consider that anyone has the right to brag about their achievements, whether its getting rich or being a great athlete. And wealth can lead to gluttony and avarice and other sins.

The free will side like to use Jesus's parable of the talents found somewhere in the Gospel of Matthew -- about the servants who wisely invested the money given by their master, and generated equity from their master's investment, as a confirmation that God blesses those who use their wealth to generate more wealth....unlike the foolish third servant, who returned the money he was given, and did not choose to build equity with the money he was given.

So, to sum it up, I think the adoption of a strong position in favour of free will led the American churches to a general determination that a person's successes and failures are due solely to their own efforts, or lack of effort -- and that's where the Blessed Are The Rich theology got started.

[Oleg Bach]

The original contract drafted by Christ was this - Sell your property and bring the money into a common purse - where all members could come and take as NEEDED. So it was the gathering of funds AND the dispersion of funds - THEN the problem of greed arose - Churches formed and took 10% plus hefty grants from richer members - but they did not redisperse the funds- in fact if you look at standard Catholic funding - they accumulated billions upon billions and gave out very little in comparrison to what they recieved - the chruch became dependent materially on it's members - They breached the original contract - they took in money but did not fulfill the later part of the arrangement - to give it out - A member of this church in theory - and I mean any member should be able to go to the church and say - " I can not pay my mortgage - or rent - or I need food for my family" - the church is supposedly to hand over cash to the one in need - privately without fan fair..go try this - you get a locked door and nothing - greed set in - the closer they became to being more and more greedy - the further they wandered from spirituality.

[Oleg Bach]

The original contract drafted by Christ was this - Sell your property and bring the money into a common purse - where all members could come and take as NEEDED. So it was the gathering of funds AND the dispersion of funds - THEN the problem of greed arose - Churches formed and took 10% plus hefty grants from richer members - but they did not redisperse the funds- in fact if you look at standard Catholic funding - they accumulated billions upon billions and gave out very little in comparrison to what they recieved - the chruch became dependent materially on it's members - They breached the original contract - they took in money but did not fulfill the later part of the arrangement - to give it out - A member of this church in theory - and I mean any member should be able to go to the church and say - " I can not pay my mortgage - or rent - or I need food for my family" - the church is supposedly to hand over cash to the one in need - privately without fan fair..go try this - you get a locked door and nothing - greed set in - the closer they became to being more and more greedy - the further they wandered from spirituality.

FURTHER MORE: The purpose of the early Christians gathering up and pooling wealth was simple - Christ was the king of the Judeans - but because of the exile to Babylon of previous aristocrats - his family returned broke - and a king needs a treasure chest to function - in order to survive against the Roman occupyers. What he set up was not unbridled capitalism - it was a very interesting type of corporate socialism - that the common wealth system was based on. He was the president - Judas was the treasurer - and the others were members of the board..Peter was the first to practice greed - He literally terrified the villagers who did not cough up the full amount that property was sold for - This sent out a message - a shakedown - If you do not pay Peter in full he will kill you with his mind - he did frighten one man to death who held back some cash - What message do you think this death sent out into the country side? This was the begining of a mafia....and it continued right up into the Vatican of today - Peter was held in contempt by Christ - Why would Christ - hand over the keys to Peter - to a coward that denied him and betrayed him - not once but three times?

[kuzadd]

Uh, are Hindus, Muslims, atheists, agnostics any less greedy than Christians?

Buddhists claim to follow precepts that deny greed but then - we just saw in Sri Lanka a massacre over land and Cambodia was the scene of horrific massacre.

----

IMV, greed is synonym for self-interest. IOW, people tend to seek out the best arrangement for themselves. For example, most people want to marry someone who will make them happy. Is it greedy to choose your own happiness when seeking a mate? After all, why choose someone who will make you unhappy?

actually since you had to mention other religions, though this article is specifically about christianity.

Islam has specific ideas about usary. There have been a couple of interesting news reports on that.

As it seems the Islamic way of banking has been fairing way better then the western way of banking.

Let's face it western banking is highly exploitive of the working class, and we don't hear christianity condemning that.

If so inclined read on.

Is Islamic finance the answer?

There are many arguements that this has alot to do with invasions of Islamic nations and installation of western style central banks.

Off topic, but since you cannot focus on christianity......

[kuzadd]

In a nutshell, it starts with the theological approach the church takes on the old free will/determinism conundrum. thical dilemma --- God could just do what he damn well pleased, and no man had the right to think, let alone ask, if God was acting in a just manner............

So, to sum it up, I think the adoption of a strong position in favour of free will led the American churches to a general determination that a person's successes and failures are due solely to their own efforts, or lack of effort -- and that's where the Blessed Are The Rich theology got started.

the theological approach you mention is exploitive of the working classes as I believe it was always intended to be.

There is no logic to be taken from the harder you work, the richer you can be.

There are a great many people that work very hard, long hours etc and still just get by and this is somehow there fault?

Is it not the fault of the employer who exploits them by working them for cheap wages?

Is it not the fault of the business man who charges the maximum amout possible for his products, as to make the cost of them out of reach? ( I am thinking of private health care US style that is the single largest cause of bankruptcy in the US)

Is it not the fault of the banks and there excessive charges, interest and fees?

Is it not the fault of the system of capitalism that uses and needs a natural rate of unemployment to manage a system that serves the upper echelons?

How then about the church that further exploits the emotions of the person, by making it their fault despite the variables, some listed, and there are many more that effect any person at any time.

For a so called christian church to espouse that theory is utter and sheer nonsense. With the infinite number of variables that effect the lives of each of us. It makes no sense to say work hard and you will be wealthy.

But this ideology, takes the load or societal responsibilities off of the upper echelons, who are benefitting greatly via exploitation of the working classes, and with the christian church as the conduit puts the responsibility back on to the people being abused/exploited. It is there fault!

This is certainly not very christian in the sense of what are the actual teachings of Christ.

I also do not note any other religion as exploitive of it's own followers

Edited May 31, 2009 by kuzadd

[Oleg Bach]

the theological approach you mention is exploitive of the working classes as I believe it was always intended to be.

There is no logic to be taken from the harder you work, the richer you can be.

There are a great many people that work very hard, long hours etc and still just get by and this is somehow there fault?

Is it not the fault of the employer who exploits them by working them for cheap wages?

Is it not the fault of the business man who charges the maximum amout possible for his products, as to make the cost of them out of reach? ( I am thinking of private health care US style that is the single largest cause of bankruptcy in the US)

Is it not the fault of the banks and there excessive charges, interest and fees?

Is it not the fault of the system of capitalism that uses and needs a natural rate of unemployment to manage a system that serves the upper echelons?

How then about the church that further exploits the emotions of the person, by making it their fault despite the variables, some listed, and there are many more that effect any person at any time.

For a so called christian church to espouse that theory is utter and sheer nonsense. With the infinite number of variables that effect the lives of each of us. It makes no sense to say work hard and you will be wealthy.

But this ideology, takes the load or societal responsibilities off of the upper echelons, who are benefitting greatly via exploitation of the working classes, and with the christian church as the conduit puts the responsibility back on to the people being abused/exploited. It is there fault!

This is certainly not very christian in the sense of what are the actual teachings of Christ.

I also do not note any other religion as exploitive of it's own followers

The term LORD - was twisted.....now we see people lord over others and exploit them - the original Christian meaning of lord was "the keeper of the bread" - a person responsible for managing the food supply and making sure that no one was hungry. The preversion took place when religion or shall I say the state - hyjacked Christianity - and people who imagined themselves as lords thought that being a lord was to starve people into submission - Powermongering and stupidy - destroyed the eccense of Christianity. If you are to form a "religion" and you are to have followers - then that leader must lead the followers to a place that they benefit being in - not the opposite.

As for working hard and being wealthy - well you will be if you save every penny - but then you die prematurely from over work and leave the money to your kids - who will be plundered by the system - and it will all be for not in the end.

There are those that inherit positions of power and authority - who have never been without because their ancestors were exploitive - and left their decendants money that was dirty - perfect example - You get Prescott Bush the grand father - who sells arms to the Nazis - bullets that kill American citizens - THEN he takes those profits - and install not one but two decendants as president - and they declare they are Christians..Yet - the money that they use to establish themselves was money gained though indirect murder and betrayal - I don't get it...actually I do.....

[Borg]

Having lived on all the continents except Antarctic and Australia - I would have to say your question is quite baseless - obviously brought on to stir the pot and nothing more. Time to try again.

Borg

[sharkman]

Or have they been so co-opted by big business interests, they just can't see past the fact they have always been manipulated for other ends

Quite simply, there is a false doctrine that arose among some churches in the US. I had first hand experience of this, when as a 13 yr old was admitted to a private christian school in abbotsford, B.C. It's what those who warn against it call a health and wealth gospel. Basically, it teaches that if you are living in God's will, he will bless your finances and your health. You will grow rich and never get sick. I went to that school for one year and was exposed to such teachings, but found them to be wrong.

Jesus taught a parable about a young rich man who wanted heaven's reward. After questioning him, Jesus looked in his heart and saw that he loved money and told him to sell all he had and come follow Jesus. I believe it was this parable where Jesus said it is easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter heaven. Heavy words indeed.

Anyway, most of the world is poor and you don't see Christians in Africa rising to riches when their neighbors are living in straw huts, so it's obvious that this teaching is wrong.

[Oleg Bach]

Quite simply, there is a false doctrine that arose among some churches in the US. I had first hand experience of this, when as a 13 yr old was admitted to a private christian school in abbotsford, B.C. It's what those who warn against it call a health and wealth gospel. Basically, it teaches that if you are living in God's will, he will bless your finances and your health. You will grow rich and never get sick. I went to that school for one year and was exposed to such teachings, but found them to be wrong.

Jesus taught a parable about a young rich man who wanted heaven's reward. After questioning him, Jesus looked in his heart and saw that he loved money and told him to sell all he had and come follow Jesus. I believe it was this parable where Jesus said it is easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter heaven. Heavy words indeed.

Anyway, most of the world is poor and you don't see Christians in Africa rising to riches when their neighbors are living in straw huts, so it's obvious that this teaching is wrong.

Spoke to an old wise Coptic Christian from Eygpt...the root of Christian doctrine as absorbed by the father of Christ while in retreat...and I am sure mentored to his son -----------THE EYE OF THE NEEDLE - was a gate in the wall of a major commercial town....what the saying actually means is - when a camel loaded with goods wanted to get to market quicker - there was a short cut to the town square - It was a small very low gate - the camel with it's load had to go to it's knees to get though - but it was profitable - even if it had to be unloaded to enter - then reloaded - so what it actually means is that it is not evil to be rich - it is un-profitable and evil to be arrogant or overly proud because you are rich - it makes you stupid...The rich man can pass into heaven if he has his priorities in order - that money is not the end all - that it is but a tool and a minor part of human life.

[WIP]

The original contract drafted by Christ was this - Sell your property and bring the money into a common purse - where all members could come and take as NEEDED.

That's right! The first stories of Jesus and his followers describe a socialist cult leader. But, keep in mind that the admonition to give away all your possessions is based on the idea that Jesus and the early church thought they were living in the end times -- so wealth and possessions would soon be of no value. Remember the story of Ananias and his wife Saphira in the Book of Acts? They were a rich couple who tried to hold back a few things for themselves; and for the sin of holding out and not giving everything to the church, they were struck dead by the Holy Spirit.....it's hard to find the Prosperity Gospel of Pat Robertson and Benny Hinn in that example!

So it was the gathering of funds AND the dispersion of funds - THEN the problem of greed arose - Churches formed and took 10% plus hefty grants from richer members - but they did not redisperse the funds- in fact if you look at standard Catholic funding - they accumulated billions upon billions and gave out very little in comparrison to what they recieved - the chruch became dependent materially on it's members - They breached the original contract - they took in money but did not fulfill the later part of the arrangement - to give it out -

Well, keep in mind that by the time the 2nd Century rolled around and there was no sign of Jesus coming back, they finally started to realize that they had to create an organizational hierarchy. The few descriptions of the early church describe nothing more than a gathering around a teacher. The epistles (letters) of Paul written to various congregations in Asia Minor, imply that the very few members of the congregation who could read, would read letters and books that had been declared to be scripture. The letters of Paul indicate that he was having a hard time keeping the churches' together regarding doctrine. During this time, there were serious splits regarding the nature of Christ (was he human or divine?), was there a Trinity or just one God, the role of women in the church; and it ended up with the Church of Rome using its new found position of Church of the Empire to enforce their doctrinal views on the rest of the churches within the Roman Empire.

The 10% tithing thing wasn't adopted by the Catholic or Protestant churches, and wasn't even common when I was young, since this idea was lifted from the Old Testament -- the tithes were used to support the Temple in Jerusalem and the Levite priesthood. Tithing in the Mormon, 7th Day Adventist, and new evangelical churches brought in an almost obscene influx of cash to build the biggest, most modern church buildings with extra facilities, not to mention linging the pockets of the church leaders. The Catholic Church did not start to rigidly enforce celibacy until around the 12th Century, likely to keep the money in the Church and from going to priests' families. The Protestant churches depended on donations and special church taxes administered by the local government. Today, if you drive around, you can tell which churches collect tithes and which don't just by looking at the outside! If it's a garish, modern building with adjacent school, gymnasium and stores -- you can bet your life they are demanding 10% of the money from members in good standing......and that still doesn't include special "love offerings," which have to be raised to support whatever real charitable work the church does! The grimy old United, Lutheran or Baptist churches you find downtown, with cracks in the brickwork, have missed out on this gravy train, and cannot offer themselves as full service community centers like some of the new churches built in new subdivisions.

A member of this church in theory - and I mean any member should be able to go to the church and say - " I can not pay my mortgage - or rent - or I need food for my family" - the church is supposedly to hand over cash to the one in need - privately without fan fair..go try this - you get a locked door and nothing - greed set in - the closer they became to being more and more greedy - the further they wandered from spirituality.

Let me know if you find one that helps you pay your mortgage!

[WIP]

the theological approach you mention is exploitive of the working classes as I believe it was always intended to be.

The predeterminist or preterist theology is not very friendly to the concept of wealth and riches being a sign of divine blessing. Their harm is caused by the fatalist attitude that predeterminism generates in people, and obviously during most of the Catholic and Protestant churches' histories, they have used the doctrine to justify keeping people "in their place" -- whether we're talking about peasants, tradesmen, slaves, or married women -- predeterminism gives the implicit message that "this is your lot in life, and just be devout, do a lot of praying and hope that you are among the elect who escape eternal damnation." It's worth noting that the dogma of the Divine Right of Kings developed from this theology, and was used for centuries to entrench the monarchs and other priviledged members of the aristocratic ruling classes.

The strong free will doctrine came more from outside of the Church, when the developing Renaissance made people realize that they really could do things on their own to improve the quality of their lives. This started a humanist philosophy, that did not necessarily take on religious dogma (especially in the early days), but was strong on ideals of freedom and individual choice. They started to develop a view of man as being basically good, unless otherwise corrupted, and possibly capable of reform and improvement. The traditional Christian attitude was based on Original Sin, or something close to it, to explain that we are incorrigible, deserving hellfire, but the creator lets a few of us in the Pearly Gates as an act of mercy. The traditional view sees man as untrustworthy and needing repressive laws (human and divine) to be made to act righteously.......I think you can see how this thinking is expressed in modern times by the "law and order" conservatives, who want the state to interfere with what we watch on TV (or the computer), what sort, if any, mind-altering substances we can injest, or whether some men can legally buy sex if they can't get it at home.....and only want freedom to make money or go bankrupt. I've often had arguments with American conservatives who think they are in step with the Founding Fathers, that their way of thinking today mirrors the authoritarian ways of the British colonialists, not the HUMANISTS who decided that kings did not get their authority to rule from God, and every man (except for slaves) had personal rights. The conservatives want to celebrate the Revolutionary War and the battles fought for independence, but most of the values of the Founding Fathers have gone right over their heads! Unfortunately, the only freedoms they value are the economic ones, and certainly not many, if any of the Founding Fathers would have been described as socialists, but they would have called for a revolution today if they saw the militarism of today's conservatives.

[Oleg Bach]

It's not likely that they believed they were in the end times - it appeared to me that they were in the begining times - people do not realize that Christ was not some mystic - or high priest - that he was the righful heir to the Judean thrown and he needed money - his followers were royalist..who wanted to re-instate the David family line - Rome would not tolerate that - nor woule the johnny come lately interlopers that wanted to have power over the former royal lands that Christ had a legal right to prior Roman occupation - and prior to the over throw of Judean aristocracy by semites NOT of that area - and I quote again - the people that wanted him dead and gone refered to themselves as Jews ( Judeans) Christ clearly said that "those that call themselves Jews ( Judeans) are not legitimate country men and have no say in Judea - so they beseached the Romans to take this poverty struck king and kill him - If you remember when Christ was born - they brought him gifts - of gold silver and incense - probably gifts in excess of at least 400 thousand dollars - these other kings arrived to give this lost king a leg up .....This biblical story has been twisted into some mythical smoke and mirrors tale..the one we accept today that has nothing to do with what really happened.

[sharkman]

Spoke to an old wise Coptic Christian from Eygpt...the root of Christian doctrine as absorbed by the father of Christ while in retreat...and I am sure mentored to his son -----------THE EYE OF THE NEEDLE - was a gate in the wall of a major commercial town....what the saying actually means is - when a camel loaded with goods wanted to get to market quicker - there was a short cut to the town square - It was a small very low gate - the camel with it's load had to go to it's knees to get though - but it was profitable - even if it had to be unloaded to enter - then reloaded - so what it actually means is that it is not evil to be rich - it is un-profitable and evil to be arrogant or overly proud because you are rich - it makes you stupid...The rich man can pass into heaven if he has his priorities in order - that money is not the end all - that it is but a tool and a minor part of human life.

Yes, Oleg, I had heard that version of the needle meaning, and at any rate, the point to me is that this young man in the parable loved money, which is the root of evil. The love of money. You can be rich and not love money, but like you've said, you need to keep your priorities in order, which in part means to not think more highly of yourself than you ought, and keep God as head of your home.

[WIP]

It's not likely that they believed they were in the end times - it appeared to me that they were in the begining times - people do not realize that Christ was not some mystic - or high priest - that he was the righful heir to the Judean thrown and he needed money - his followers were royalist..who wanted to re-instate the David family line - Rome would not tolerate that

No, the authors of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) thought the end was nigh back in their time; that's why they wrote things like: Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation; Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (but in Romans 10:18 Paul says that job has already been done: But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.;

even more blatantly that they were already in the end times:

Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.; Mark 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.; Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.; Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.; Romans 13:11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.; 1 Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.;

and by the time 2 Peter was written, the early church was noticing that the natives were getting restless. Well, why the hell not! They had sold all of their possessions to become itinerant preachers on the assumption that the end was coming:

2 Peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

So, the point is that the collection of 66 books that most Christians today treat as one single book - The Bible - is a buffet table of differing beliefs! Those early Christians almost certainly believed they were living in the last days, because very little thought was given to organizing a church, let alone how governments and laws should be established. That's why the later Catholic Church started to borrow and steal from ancient Greek philosophers, primarily Plato and Aristotle, to flesh out a complete Christian theology. For most of Catholic and Protestant history, the salvation drama of a world coming to an end, to be replaced with a new, perfect world - was replaced with a theology of personal salvation and resurrection to the heavenly realm.

[Oleg Bach]

"Mamma may have- Pappa may have, but God bless the child that has his own" I think that is humanity putting words in Gods' mouth. Need - Most people will walk into a dry garden and water the flower that needs water least - the beautiful rich bloom - and they don't even think of putting water on the skimpy starving apparently hopless plant - why is that? It is like those that grant the rich more money - bail them out - suck up to them and let them eat in resturants for free - as if some great favour will be granted - as if they can feed on the crumbs that fall from the masters table - as if the master will toss you a bone like you are a dog ---------------wrong! The rich will give you nothing - the flower that is in full lush bloom fades quickly and is useless as food - it is the sprout the over looked poor shoot that grants favour and sustainance......So many ass holes suck up to the rich expecting the fanciful trickle down effect - that never comes!

[sharkman]

No, the authors of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) thought the end was nigh back in their time; that's why they wrote things like: Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation; Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (but in Romans 10:18 Paul says that job has already been done: But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.;

even more blatantly that they were already in the end times:

Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.; Mark 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.; Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.; Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.; Romans 13:11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.; 1 Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.;

and by the time 2 Peter was written, the early church was noticing that the natives were getting restless. Well, why the hell not! They had sold all of their possessions to become itinerant preachers on the assumption that the end was coming:

2 Peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

If you are going to be so wildly inaccurate on the very first scripture you listed, how can one trust that you know what you are talking about? Matthew 23:36 has nothing to do with the end times. The people of Jesus's generation said they would not act as their fathers did in killing the prophets and God had sent to them, but they were about to kill Jesus himself.

Matthew 24:14 Jesus does not say one single thing that indicates he thought their generation would see the end come. Conveniently, the very next verse, which you left out I suppose in an effort to not get readers confused with the facts, says,"When you see standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation..." and lists many things which will indicate the last days, none of which they saw then.

Are you purposedly trying to mislead people or are you just using some software program to bring up verses where Jesus says,"endtimes"? Either way, you shouldn't be so loose with the truth, it makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about.

[WIP]

If you are going to be so wildly inaccurate on the very first scripture you listed, how can one trust that you know what you are talking about?

SIMPLE! READ ALL OF THEM AND TRY TO EXPLAIN THEM AWAY.

Matthew 23:36 has nothing to do with the end times. The people of Jesus's generation said they would not act as their fathers did in killing the prophets and God had sent to them, but they were about to kill Jesus himself.

Let's look at the rest of the chapter then -- and remember, he says "all these things will come upon this generation -- referring to the gathering of people before him:

23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

23:39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

The strange thing about this chapter is the reference to the Jews killing and stoning prophets. Which prophets is he referring to? Were any Old Testament prophets killed by the Jews? And if he's telling them that they will not see him until he returns in the "name of the Lord," isn't that referring to the 2nd Coming?

Matthew 24:14 Jesus does not say one single thing that indicates he thought their generation would see the end come. Conveniently, the very next verse, which you left out I suppose in an effort to not get readers confused with the facts, says,"When you see standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation..." and lists many things which will indicate the last days, none of which they saw then.

And wouldn't the desolation of the holy place refer to the Temple being sacked and desecrated by the Romans in the year 70 C.E.? An event which already took place before the book was written, and well within the lifetimes of many of the people who were disciples.

Are you purposedly trying to mislead people or are you just using some software program to bring up verses where Jesus says,"endtimes"? Either way, you shouldn't be so loose with the truth, it makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about.

Oh! I'm trying to mislead, am I? Why no comments about Mark 9:1 Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Gee, that sure sounds like he's referring to his contemporaries - still being there when he comes back! Or Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

I'm not interested in whether your end-time church dogma tries to explain away every instance where verses indicate the end-time prophecies were referring to the people of Jesus's day; the fact is that is the simplest, most straightforward interpretation -- that the verses mean exactly what they say, instead of having to be twisted and molded to try to make them apply in the present day, or the near future.

If I wanted to really pile on, I could have added more verses for you to try to explain away:

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

1 Corinthians 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none.

I Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Hebrews 9:26 But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Courtesy of Evilbible.com

[Borg]

How wonderful - duelling biblical quotes.

Should we expand from Christians and include the koran and the Torah?

Borg

[WIP]

My point is that there is a strong case based on those bible quotes, that the early Christians were members of an apocalyptic sect or cult. The "Left Behind" crowd today is going to try to reinterpret every last one of them for our day -- just like every other era in the last 2000 years of Christianity has had end time cultists.

I'm not interested in arguing with all of the end time rationalizations; if it was just one or two verses, they could be rationalized away; but there are many others besides the ones I quoted, which indicate that the majority of New Testament writers were expecting Jesus to return during their lifetimes.

[sharkman]

My point is that there is a strong case based on those bible quotes, that the early Christians were members of an apocalyptic sect or cult. The "Left Behind" crowd today is going to try to reinterpret every last one of them for our day -- just like every other era in the last 2000 years of Christianity has had end time cultists.

I'm not interested in arguing with all of the end time rationalizations; if it was just one or two verses, they could be rationalized away; but there are many others besides the ones I quoted, which indicate that the majority of New Testament writers were expecting Jesus to return during their lifetimes.

And you would be wrong again. I am not trying, or am I going to have a scripture verse shootout, especially with someone who ascribes completely wrong meanings to the verses. But I will correct you one more time because once again you are way off base.

Matthew 23:39 is in part a quote from the old testament, and the line you think is a code for end times is from psalms 118:26 and written by David the king.

Matthew 24:14 does not refer to the Romans sacking the temple. The temple was sacked more than once, and this is a quote (Jesus knew his scriptures) from Daniel 9:27 and is referring to the Anti-Christ ruling from a rebuilt temple.

I didn't bother to respond to the rest because if you were so inaccurate on the first two, you are obviously not worthy of trust on the rest, but I've got some more time this morning, so then Mark 9:1. He was referring to either Pentecost (Acts) or his death and resurrection. The thing is, since he didn't directly say which, you can't simply infer meaning every single time to your pet theories. If it's not there, it's not there.

Luke 21:32 5 - 32 is where Jesus tells about the future, end times and his return. When you read the whole thing you easily see he was talking about a future generation, and when it sees the things he describes, they will not pass away until all is fulfilled. If you just grab one verse at the end, however, you won't have an accurate idea of what he is saying.

Anybody can grab a verse out of context and ascribe meaning to it that is not there, and if you want to believe these fallacies, that's up to you. But I took the time to at least show you how wrong you are. If you've done this with the whole bible, you could be way off base about a book you don't even believe in.

But one more, Matthew 16:28. Read the whole section, 21-28. What is it that Jesus talks about at the beginning? When he goes to Jerusalem, gets arrested and is crucified. Then at 28 he is referring to his resurrection and ascending into heaven, or coming into his kingdom. But if you just read verse 28, it could mean any of your pet theories. Your choice.

Just a thought, but it's time you dragged yourself into the 20th century, stop using the old King James version, try something more modern. But your Evilbible friend don't know what they are talking about.

By the way, what possessed you to introduce endtimes bible prophecy in a thread on christians and greed, can you not start a thread on the appropriate topic rather than keep hi-jacking threads?

Edited June 1, 2009 by sharkman

[scorpio]

So, the point is that the collection of 66 books that most Christians today treat as one single book - The Bible - is a buffet table of differing beliefs! Those early Christians almost certainly believed they were living in the last days, because very little thought was given to organizing a church, let alone how governments and laws should be established. That's why the later Catholic Church started to borrow and steal from ancient Greek philosophers, primarily Plato and Aristotle, to flesh out a complete Christian theology. For most of Catholic and Protestant history, the salvation drama of a world coming to an end, to be replaced with a new, perfect world - was replaced with a theology of personal salvation and resurrection to the heavenly realm.

And thus Jesus becomes God and the Church is born at Nicea 300 years later.