Im still a salty biznatch about a street preacher saying they didn’t have to sell everything they down because Jesus said to one disciple and in that context yeah Jesus said it to that disciple.
Turns out that Jesus did say that you have to give up everything luke 14:25-33
The Cost of Discipleship (Matthew 8:18–22; Luke 9:57–62; John 6:59–66)
Now large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and He turned and said to them, 26“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be My disciple. 27And whoever does not carry his cross and follow Me cannot be My disciple.
Which of you, wishing to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost to see if he has the resources to complete it? 29Otherwise, if he lays the foundation and is unable to finish the work, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, 30saying, ‘This man could not finish what he started to build.’
Or what king on his way to war with another king will not first sit down and consider whether he can engage with ten thousand men the one coming against him with twenty thousand? And if he is unable, he will send a delegation while the other king is still far off, to ask for terms of peace.
In the same way, any one of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be My disciple.
But does anyone see a Christian legitimately follow this commandment from Jesus
I had similar arguments over pacifism and it amazed me how the christians would prove to me that jesus was not and did not preach pacifism.
Ikr. Like offer the other cheek wasn’t meant to show you passivism but like this way to get people you don’t like to use a other hand in a taboo way. I guess I have to assume it’s more correct interpretation since it’s relevant for that culture.
At this point Jesus can “you have to do X” and it get interpreted as a point for how you should live and think.
No, never personally. But I’m convinced it was meant absolutely literally. The Jesus movement was a hardcore apocalyptic cult drawing many members (like for example Jesus) from older apocalyptic cults like the one of John the Baptist, who was executed for leading a cult. Everyone knew this, so anyone who still joined must have known full well what it entails. It seems fair and consistent with dogma to say, that Jesus went in it with a death wish. But all the other followers must have been pretty hardcore as well. A core tenet of the movement was preparing for the imminent kingdom of God - the end of the world. They are very clear about the kingdom coming within their lifetime, so any possessions would have been superfluous.
And then there’s the material component: the Romans had raised taxes immensely, mostly collecting them in the country but only investing in the cities. The Jesus movement was made up of losers of this process (that’s why cooperators and “tax collectors” are painted by them as the worst kind of sinners). They didn’t have much to hold on to. Too bad their revolutionary tactic came down to simply declaring what ever they wished to happen was about to be caused by devine intervention any moment now.
I was also thinking that followers must have been super poor. Since massage of give up everything and you’ll be rewarded would resonated to literal beggars or people who had nothing. Comes off as high yield return for the poor
Jesus was not just talking about money or clothes. He was talking about attachment. If your heart is tied to your house, your reputation, or even your family more than it is tied to Truth and Love, you cannot be a true disciple. To follow the “Cosmic Christ” means your spirit must be free. You can use things, but you must not be owned by them.
People follow this, but they are rare. You will not usually find them shouting on street corners or showing off their wealth in big churches. They are the people who live simply so that others may simply live. They are the ones who would give away their last resource to help a person or an animal in need without thinking twice. They see themselves as “managers” of their money, not “owners.”
The preacher you met used a common excuse. While Jesus did speak to individuals, he also spoke to “large crowds” (Luke 14:25) when he said these things. He wanted people to know that the path of high wisdom requires total commitment. You cannot climb a mountain while carrying a thousand heavy bags. The “New Wisdom” here is this: Giving up everything is not about being poor; it is about being free. A person with a billion dollars who is ready to lose it all for the sake of Love is more a “disciple” than a poor person who spends all day wishing they were rich. True disciples exist. They are the quiet lights in the world who live for the Whole, not for the “Self.”
He was since money and clothes are included in everything
Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide yourselves with purses that will not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.
Jesus being more explicit to his disciples about selling everything.
Like these are explicit things Jesus is requiring people to do. It’s not a metaphor to hate your family and your own life. Your actually supposed to do it.
Yes, I have met:
-
monks and nuns who took vows of poverty
-
missionaries who own nothing and are fully supported by their sponsor
I was going to answer something like this.
-
About 20 years ago when I was heavy into Christianity I donated everything I had and then some (well into debt…) thinking that I would somehow be rewarded by god.
Well, guess what, nothing.
Mentors and pastors said I needed to pray more and read the Bible more and seek guidance more. I peaked at attending church three times a week and bible studies 1-2 times a week.
Still nothing.
Long story short, fuck religion, I left and never looked back. I’m 1000% happier, less depressed, and continue to be reasonably generous.
That sounds super frustrating. Hopefully you didn’t get that prosperity gospel nonsense. I could imagine people being like “you ain’t rich so you didn’t get God’s blessing”
what did the king say to the pope?
Must christians I know hoard money like that dragon from The Hobbit.
I had some great aunts, now deceased, who became nuns and didn’t really own anything themselves personally.
Hmmm. Yeah being a nun would do that. I know them more for celibacy than giving up worldly possession
The vow of celibacy is what people know, but they do take a vow of poverty too
poverty except for getting all their expenses bankrolled by the richest grifter around
In my country, there’s plenty of nun that lives literally in the middle of the forest or mountain, surviving with their own grown food, with small old house probably not suitable for modern safety standard.
Or most of the time, they living in the same condition as average people, and dedicate their time as teacher, nurse, or other social jobs without any pay (or their wage usually combined for their fellow nun housing)
I’ve met both monks and nuns.
So yes.
Good example.
But don’t many join these days because of some personal calamity where they’ve already lost much? The church takes them in, gives them purpose and a roof over their heads.
(I say “these days” as historically, under primogeniture, the second son of a wealthy lord would often be given to the church to give them purpose/keep them out of the way of the firstborn. Daughters were similarly steered into a nunnery to avoid the parents having to pay a substantial dowry)
Who hasn’t experienced some personal calamity? Seems like something that can be retroactively applied to anyone.
Dude went into the seminary to become a priest after his girlfriend dumped him? Personal calamity! He’s hiding from future dumpings by becoming a priest!
Well, I’m absolutely certain people have taken lifelong orders for less than your example, but I’m thinking more about situations where someone is left alone, homeless and without any other options. Government aid is often slow to arrive, especially if you’re a single man, and homeless charities are always overstretched. Even today, it’s not such a stretch to imagine someone turning to God in their hour of need.
(I’m athiest btw, I’m not arguing that it’s a good option, only that some people may see it as their only option and honestly, there are worse)
Yes, I met one on the pilgrimage to Santiago di Compostela. He owned a pair of boots, a backpack with his clothes, a phone, and nothing else. And boy was he happy!
Id think that would be owning too much for Jesus, but I guess they can use clothes and phone without owning it.
They probably just get happiness from experience and doing things
Jesus wasn’t telling the poor destitute to sell everything, he told the wealthy that it was their only way to salvation. A guy with a pair of shoes, a few sets of clothing and a phone is living as bare bones a life style as is possible in any modern society.
You are doing the Fox News bit of complaining that food stamp recipients have cell phones and refrigerators
Jesus kinda is weirdly enough. Like give up everything kinda explicit and the reward in heaven implies that however you live in this life will only be temporary suffering. So you could die in a ditch and life again in heaven. Heaven and God is what really matters.
But it’s weird like you can use things without owning them. Like they could give the shirt off their own back to someone that needs it just like they could presumably get it and I wouldn’t consider them owning the shirt just using it. Same goes for the phone too.
I’m not complaining about them having anything. It’s just odd that Jesus says give up everything but there work arounds because you can still use things without owning them
As long as your basic needs are met, being happy is then just a skill issue.
This is baby shit. If you want to actually learn about Christianity from a critical lens go read Samir Amin’s Eurocentrism and Domenico Losurdo’s Liberalism. Thank me later. They’re on Anna’s.
If I learned I would forget over time
Yes. Many. For a time, me.
Neat, I never see Christians going around preaching God and Jesus
deleted by creator
