View Single Post
Old 02-07-2009, 11:08 AM   #579
NatCh
Gizmologist
NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NatCh ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
NatCh's Avatar
 
Posts: 11,615
Karma: 929550
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Republic of Texas Embassy at Jackson, TN
Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3
Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe View Post
I would have thought that was because they are not reading in "or any man" and is reading it so that it is impossible to get in if you are rich if you interpret it as a real camel. So to motivate why they do not give away all their money they have to find an explanation.
That's sort of the way that the disciples interpreted the remark at first.

Remember that wealth was perceived at the time as a mark of righteousness and God's favor. It's important to following the discussion -- here's the relevant part of the exchange:
Quote:
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”

But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:23-26)
I think the discussion pretty directly supports the idea that Jesus was drawing an analogy with something that was considered impossible, and pointing out that God's resources make "impossibility" rather something else again.



One of the things that makes understanding what the Bible says about various things difficult is that a lot of folks leave God out of it when they read it.

What I mean by that is that the things written there are predicated upon the existence of an all-powerful, supernatural being. If the reader cannot or will not -- at least for the sake of understanding what's being said -- read the words with that subtext in mind, they'll never understand a lot of what it says.

Consider this statement for example: “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” If you consider that it was said with the existence of God as a sub-text (you don't have to believe it to consider that), it's a simple statement that's no trouble at all to follow. However, if you insist on parsing it with a "there is no God" perspective, it's just gibberish, and you'll never be able to even follow what it says.

This is a pretty obvious one, and very few folks would try to read it that latter way, but they'll do exactly that without even batting an eye on the more obscure parts.

The Bible is just like any other book in that sense: you have to consider it on its own terms to follow what it says. That is not the same thing as accepting it as true. I very much enjoy Anne McCaffrey's books (not so much Todd's, I regret to say) -- but I don't really believe that there's a planet out there in the Sagittarius sector which will one day be dubbed "Pern."

I'm not suggesting that anyone simply accept that there is a God and get in line, have some cool-aid, and be happy. I'm only pointing out that if you consider the Bible within the terms in which it was written, a lot of the apparent illogic and contradiction disappears.

In this case, I guess what I'm talking about would fall somewhere between suspension of disbelief and suspension of judgment.
NatCh is offline