I recently found out that apparently

[conuly]

there are some Christians who think the Sermon on the Mount is optional until the Second Coming. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, tend for the sick, visit the prisoner, or welcome the stranger*? NONE OF THAT NONSENSE HERE. Not until Jesus comes back.

The mind boggles. I can't even fathom how they twisted that logic to make it work.

I feel sorry for these people. No, really, I do**! They clearly missed that day in kindergarten where everybody learned how to share.

* Wait, is that Sermon on the Mount or something else? Anyway, thing is, it's optional.

** I don't.

Comments

[wpadmirer]

That's gotta be some of that new-fangled "God wants you to be a millionaire" cult bullshit the evangelicals came up with.

I was raised Southern Baptist, and it was NOT optional EVER.

(Though the Southern Baptists are their own kind of crazy these days.)

[conuly]

Prosperity gospel is... I don't even have words. Did those people excise those parts of the NT where Jesus talks about money?

[malkingrey]

Given that they're clearly blanking out the "suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not," and the subsequent pointed comments about millstones and the ocean . . . I'd say, probably, yep.

(I'm not Southern Baptist, but I've been around long enough to remember when they were harder on themselves than they were on other people. Getting involved in politics changed all that; the devil took them up to the top of the mountain and showed them the kingdoms of the world and the glory thereof, and they said, "Thank you, Brother Satan, I do believe I'll have me some.")

[mama_kestrel]

Wasn't that supposed to be how they were supposed to get Jesus to come back?

I could be totally scrambled on that, of course. Not Christian, never have been.

[sathari]

Getting involved in politics changed all that; the devil took them up to the top of the mountain and showed them the kingdoms of the world and the glory thereof, and they said, "Thank you, Brother Satan, I do believe I'll have me some."

...that is on the nose and perfect. Yes. That exactly. I may have to quote this around some.

[malkingrey]

Feel free!

[conuly]

Never heard that one. They're supposed to do these things and then at the final judgment they'll be sorted by whether they did them or not.

[deird1]

Yep, totally. I've also heard "Well, yes, we're supposed to feed hungry Christians, and clothe naked Christians, and..."

Long story short, humans are very good at coming up with justifications for what we want.

[conuly]

*headdesk*

[kengr]

Oh, you haven't heard the one where they say the bit about it being easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven?

They claim that refers to a very narrow gate in the wall of Jerusalem that was called "the eye of the needle".

So it's *possible* for a camel to get thru it, but it's really quite a chore.

*sigh*

And no, I'm not making this up.

[oloriel]

I've heard that one, and I don't think it's actually that bad. I mean, if this is indeed the correct interpretation, it would mean that it isn't impossible for a rich man to go into heaven, but it would take a lot of conscious effort on his part. So a rich man who uses his money to (say) pay for the education of poor children or the hospital bills of those who can't afford them, who supports or installs charitable institutions, etc. - that kind of rich man can get to heaven. Just like the camel driver will probably have to coax the camel gently through the eye of the needle, while pushing, pulling or whipping the poor beast won't achieve anything.

Which is fair, in my opinion. I mean, having a lot of money shouldn't automatically disqualify someone. It's what they do with the money that makes the difference, right?

[tcpip]

That seems rather convenient for them, doesn't it?

[wpadmirer]

Yeah, along with their hearts. They are NOT Christians. That is in complete opposition to what Christianity is about.

[wpadmirer]

Getting involved in politics changed all that; the devil took them up to the top of the mountain and showed them the kingdoms of the world and the glory thereof, and they said, "Thank you, Brother Satan, I do believe I'll have me some.

Absolutely!

[kengr]

That's thing thing. It doesn't *sound* that bad. But from what I hear, it's considered absolute BS by real Biblical scholars.

So we are left with what Christ (reportedly) said.

I'm in no danger of being excluded from heaven for *that* reason, but I've got enough others to worry about.

[wpadmirer]

Yeah, that's the point, but these new guys aren't interpreting it that way at all!

Giving it the most charitable possible interpretation...

[hudebnik]

... some people might reasonably argue that all those admonitions from Jesus apply to *individuals*, not to *governments*. Governments don't need to worry about getting into Heaven, so governments have no obligation whatsoever to take care of the sick, the hungry, the naked, the needy, especially not with my tax dollars. That's for *me* to do, by my personal choice.

So why don't I do it by personal choice? Because I'm suffering myself because of Obama's War on People Like Me, and there are millions of the sick, hungry, naked, and needy, and most of them aren't anywhere that I see them, and the ones I *do* see up close are probably criminals or drug addicts or illegal aliens or lobster-eating welfare queens or Moslem terrorists so they don't deserve my charity.

Or something like that. Even the most charitable possible interpretation is not very Christlike.

[author_by_night]

That's just depressing.

[redbird]

One of my working hypotheses is that it's politically/socially advantageous to be (seen as) Christian, and that sometimes the easiest way for people to do that is to find a way to label whatever they already believe/choose to do as Christian.

That's not just on something like this: anything from communism to "wealth is a sign of God's favor," from complete sexual abstinence for all (the Shakers) to group marriage, from apostolic succession to priesthood of all believers.

[conuly]

It's BS. There's no evidence that there was ever such a gate. This interpretation, tellingly, was made up in the 1400s. If it had any validity, we would've heard about it sooner.

Another, somewhat more reasonable interpretation - and one which has been floating around for considerably longer than 500 years (try 1700 years!) - is that camel (kamêlos) and rope (kamilos) are very similar and that at some point somebody wrote the wrong word down and here we are. That is significantly more plausible than a gate that doesn't exist.

It's worth noting that, according to Wikipedia, the Talmud has multiple mentions of pushing an elephant through a needle, with the self-evident meaning. If the expression was simply in reasonably common parlance then it doesn't need to be explained or parsed literally, we can assume it means what it obviously means. Rich men aren't going into heaven.

This view is backed up by other things Jesus said about the rich. If you're rich, obviously one thing you've done with your money is hoarded it. That's a no-no. Storing up treasures on earth disqualifies you from going to heaven because only people who give away all their wealth and focus on a. charity and b. spiritual pursuits are getting in.

[conuly]

That explanation is complete nonsense, and there's no evidence that there was ever any such gate.

[conuly]

Seriously.

Re: Giving it the most charitable possible interpretation...

[conuly]

No, it's not. And it's not very kind either.

[conuly]

I know.

[conuly]

Still, that doesn't mean they have to torture logic like this.