Christianity with the Bling-Bling

[albionmoonlight]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1533448,00.html

According to this article, a growing number of Christian Evangelicals are starting to preach that God wants his followers to be rich (or at least that God does not mind if his followers are rich), and that following Christ does not mean that one should not attempt to obtain vast amounts of material wealth.

I guess that this is a natural evolution since the Evangelicals have politically alligned with the Republican party in America--traditionally (but by no means exclusively) the party of the wealthy.

Strikes me as interesting fodder for discussion, though. Thoughts?

[Honolulu_Blue]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1533448,00.html

According to this article, a growing number of Christian Evangelicals are starting to preach that God wants his followers to be rich (or at least that God does not mind if his followers are rich), and that following Christ does not mean that one should not attempt to obtain vast amounts of material wealth.

I guess that this is a natural evolution since the Evangelicals have politically alligned with the Republican party in America--traditionally (but by no means exclusively) the party of the wealthy.

Strikes me as interesting fodder for discussion, though. Thoughts?

"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."

[Butter]

Those are the best 1 and a half paragraphs of a story ever.

[CraigSca]

Hmm...I never heard about this. It seems odd to me that some evangelicals would actually have time to spend on something like this. I don't see any harm in being rich, but to preach on it so much so that it becomes a story in Time Magazine seems kind of silly to me.

[Schmidty]

Coming this October to a church near you:


Christianity 2 - Revenge of the Pharisees

More rigid. More insane. They're back and they're pissed.

[Drake]

Bah. The prosperity movement was here in the 80's. This is nothing new.

[Drake]

"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."

One thought I'd point out here (because this verse gets tossed around a bunch when the prosperity movement comes up): harder != impossible.

It's easier to rely on God when you don't have anything (and the cares that go along with owning and maintaining stuff). Folks have a tendency to ignore their relationship with God when they have plenty. I think Jesus was just pointing out this fact rather than condemning the rich just because they're rich.

[CraigSca]

/Agree. If you're rich it's easy to let the ego take over and think you have the answers for everything.

[JPhillips]

Drake: But remember the line previous to that, "You cannot serve God and mammon."

I'll give you that the prosperity movement has been around since the eighties, but it was the popularity of the Prayer of Jabez in the late nineties that popularized it, I think.

I won't get into a big debate on the meaning of the Gospels as I think its up to each individual to find God's truth, but I will say that there is a disturbing selfishness in parts of Christianity that has manifested itself through the accumulation of worldly possesions.

[Drake]

There's a disturbing selfishness in parts of every social/demographic/political/racial group that has manifested itself through the accumulation of worldly possessions. If there weren't Christians with the same hang-ups, that would be surprising. Most Christians I know are Christians because they're trying to become like Christ, not because they're already there.

Edit: Oh, and the Prayer of Jabez thing didn't popularize the already existing prosperity movement. It was just another round of the same thing. The prosperity thing seems to surface every ten to fifteen years in evangelical circles. In fact, though I said it's been around since the '80's, that would really just have been my introduction to it. The Jesus People movement of the early '70's was (in large part) an organized response to prosperity theology. Prosperity theology and poverty theology tend to form two legs of the neat little Hegelian dialectical triad that plays itself out every decade or so.

[albionmoonlight]

It is also worth noting that other world faiths hold differing attitudes toward the acquisition of wealth and physical comfort/pleasure. Hinduism for instance (and here I am making a gross generalization) sees nothing wrong with the pursuit of physical pleasure in itself. It simply views such pursuit as reflecting an immature view of the world. The idea is that, some point after surrounding yourself with the most sublime physical pleasures, you will notice this nagging feeling of emptiness and discontent.1 At this point, you are ready to begin looking away from things of this world and toward spiritual fulfillment.

1. Or, as some have put it: There comes a time when we must say even of Mozart, even of Shakespeare, "Is that all?"

[Galaxy]

So, how would they explain Paris Hilton? :)

[st.cronin]

This is nothing new, consider the history of the phrase "protestant work ethic." Max Weber, anybody?

[Galaxy]

It is also worth noting that other world faiths hold differing attitudes toward the acquisition of wealth and physical comfort/pleasure. Hinduism for instance (and here I am making a gross generalization) sees nothing wrong with the pursuit of physical pleasure in itself. It simply views such pursuit as reflecting an immature view of the world. The idea is that, some point after surrounding yourself with the most sublime physical pleasures, you will notice this nagging feeling of emptiness and discontent.1 At this point, you are ready to begin looking away from things of this world and toward spiritual fulfillment.

1. Or, as some have put it: There comes a time when we must say even of Mozart, even of Shakespeare, "Is that all?"

How do Arabs view it?

[Abe Sargent]

How do Arabs view it?

Since Arabs are an ethnicity and not a religion, individual Arabs would view as their own faith dictates.

[Galaxy]

Since Arabs are an ethnicity and not a religion, individual Arabs would view as their own faith dictates.

Man, I'm not thinking today. I meant Muslims.

[Groundhog]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1533448,00.html

According to this article, a growing number of Christian Evangelicals are starting to preach that God wants his followers to be rich (or at least that God does not mind if his followers are rich), and that following Christ does not mean that one should not attempt to obtain vast amounts of material wealth.


O RLY? And where did God state this? This idiocy is not in the Bible which, last I checked, is the entire basis of the Christian religion. As a matter of fact, it says the opposite a number of times:

Luke 3:11 “John answered, ‘the man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.’"

Luke 12:33 "Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys."

That's just a few, and there are many others dealing with kindness to the poor. If you are acquiring as much wealth as you can then I am sorry, but you are selectively following Christianity, which is the same as not following it at all.

[molson]

The Bible says a lot of things.

[Drake]

I eat pork.

[Butter]

If you are acquiring as much wealth as you can then I am sorry, but you are selectively following Christianity, which is the same as not following it at all.

In truth, isn't that what nearly all Christians do?

[CraigSca]

I don't see the problem with a Christian accumulating as much wealth as they can, as long as they proportionally give back via charity, tithing, offering, etc.

Is there something inherently wrong with a Christian being an economic success?

[albionmoonlight]

Man, I'm not thinking today. I meant Muslims.

I'm not sure. I know that almsgiving is one of the five pillars of Islam, but my knowlege does not extend beyond that--and that does not really answer the question.

I obtained my knowlege of Hinduism from The World's Religions by Huston Smith:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780062508119&itm=2

I found this to be a very good book to give one an overview of all of the major faith traditions. It is written for the interested layperson. I would "look up" Islam to see if it says anything about poverty/prosperity, but I lent the book to a friend.

Anyway, I imagine that wikipedia, et al. have the answers somewhere.

[albionmoonlight]

Is there something inherently wrong with a Christian being an economic success?

And, if so, what does "economic success" mean? By the standards of my neighbors, I am average. If, however, you look at the world at large, I am almost unspeakably wealthy.

If I say that being "rich" is incompatible with being a Christian, then I am begging a pretty obvious question.

[cuervo72]

I don't see the problem with a Christian accumulating as much wealth as they can, as long as they proportionally give back via charity, tithing, offering, etc.

I actually looked at a page on tithing at the UMC website yesterday, and it had this:

"Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on." (Luke 21:3-4)

[Groundhog]

In truth, isn't that what nearly all Christians do?

Well, in truth, it's what nearly all people of all religions do. For most, religion offers a nice umbrella to group all their own personal feelings and beliefs under.

[molson]

And, if so, what does "economic success" mean? By the standards of my neighbors, I am average. If, however, you look at the world at large, I am almost unspeakably wealthy.

If I say that being "rich" is incompatible with being a Christian, then I am begging a pretty obvious question.

It's a good point. People who consider wealth or materalism "un-Christian" typically put that threshold somewhere above where their individual status is. When surely, no American can be saved if the bible is taken literally.

[CraigSca]

If I say that being "rich" is incompatible with being a Christian, then I am begging a pretty obvious question.

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding you here.

[CraigSca]

I actually looked at a page on tithing at the UMC website yesterday, and it had this:

"Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on." (Luke 21:3-4)

Right. Obviously, if a poor person gives 70% of their income they contributed more than a rich person who gives their 70%.

Still - maybe I'm not getting it - but I don't see how God would frown on someone being rich.

[CraigSca]

When surely, no American can be saved if the bible is taken literally.

Are you using the Biblical version of being "saved" here?

[Groundhog]

Right. Obviously, if a poor person gives 70% of their income they contributed more than a rich person who gives their 70%.

Still - maybe I'm not getting it - but I don't see how God would frown on someone being rich.

Because being "rich" means you have an excess of wealth, whilst other people don't have anything.

[albionmoonlight]

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding you here.

Sorry. All I meant was that the next question is "What is 'rich?'"

[Groundhog]

Being "rich" is when you have enough money to not have to worry about crucial needs (food, shelter, etc), while still having enough left over to spend on luxury items like insanely big plasma TVs, $600 gaming consoles, and ~$200+ nights out on the piss.

If you want to take the bible literally - which I imagine should be the case - then you should be giving that excess cash to those that need it just to be able to survive. I don't think that's particularily realistic or sensible, but there ya go.

[CraigSca]

Because being "rich" means you have an excess of wealth, whilst other people don't have anything.

Okay - I see. Personally, I don't think being rich and Christian are mutually exclusive. While it's utimately admirable to make $1 million a year and give away all but $20K of it and live in poverty, I don't think it makes you less of a Christian if you choose not to do so.

[Butter]

Well, in truth, it's what nearly all people of all religions do. For most, religion offers a nice umbrella to group all their own personal feelings and beliefs under.

Perhaps, but we're not talking about all religions here. We're talking about Christianity. I don't understand the uproar about some people not taking parts of the Bible seriously, when virtually no one actually takes many parts of the Bible literally or seriously. Who decided that they get to pick and choose?

[Noop]

Jesus was a Jew

[Drake]

Jesus caused Global Warming.

[Groundhog]

Perhaps, but we're not talking about all religions here. We're talking about Christianity. I don't understand the uproar about some people not taking parts of the Bible seriously, when virtually no one actually takes many parts of the Bible literally or seriously. Who decided that they get to pick and choose?

Beats me.

If I had a dollar for everytime I'd heard/seen a Christian rave on about Jesus' loving, peacefullness I'd be a rich man. Yet Christians seem to forget that the bible has Jesus stating that he did not come for peace but for violence (Matthew 10:34, amongst others), and he in fact actively promotes the killing of non-believers in this chilling passage:

Luke 19:27: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

I mean, come on, that's as savage as anything you see in Islamic texts, and I garauntee you that the passage won't get read out at the next church service you attend.

If you are going to take the bible litterally and be a good Christian, then you should be out there slaying all the Jews/Islamics/Buddhists/Shintoists/Scientologists that you can get your hands on apparently, like the Islamics are criticized for.

[Groundhog]

Okay - I see. Personally, I don't think being rich and Christian are mutually exclusive. While it's utimately admirable to make $1 million a year and give away all but $20K of it and live in poverty, I don't think it makes you less of a Christian if you choose not to do so.

Because while you are inside your heated apartment building, on your expensive couch, playing Madden 2007 on your xbox 360, someone is outside freezing to death.

Again, this isn't my personal stance on this issue, but this should be the Christian stance if you are going to follow the bible.

[QuikSand]

You don't take the people by storm by telling them what to do. You win them over by telling them they can do mostly what they want to do anyway. It's a competitive market out there for hearts and minds, you have to go with what's selling these days.

Drop by your local megachurch, praise the big guy a few times, and talk about your blissful future in heaven, and how much you hate the current group of people different than us we've decided to place in the crosshairs. Then pass the plate. For the win.

[molson]

Perhaps, but we're not talking about all religions here. We're talking about Christianity. I don't understand the uproar about some people not taking parts of the Bible seriously, when virtually no one actually takes many parts of the Bible literally or seriously. Who decided that they get to pick and choose?

Well, the Bible was edited by man in the first place (by people from denominations mostly different than those who take the Bible so literally today), and that edit has never really stopped, in a practical sense. Isn’t it at least conceivable (from a Christian’s point of view) that Jesus’ message was tainted by those with their own agendas? The human mind, I think, loves the concepts of all the answers of life being in a single book – pretty much every religion went this route. I’ve never been comfortable (or a believer) of the reality of that.

As for the rich guy thing, it seems that there are as many Christians as there are versions of Christianity.

[CraigSca]

Luke 19:27: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

If you are going to take the bible litterally and be a good Christian, then you should be out there slaying all the Jews/Islamics/Buddhists/Shintoists/Scientologists that you can get your hands on apparently, like the Islamics are criticized for.

I don't think this is a call to arms for Christians. I think this is basically a: "all those who do not accept me will feel my Father's wrath on Judgment Day". But, that's just my take...

[Drake]

Luke 19:27: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

I mean, come on, that's as savage as anything you see in Islamic texts, and I garauntee you that the passage won't get read out at the next church service you attend.


Way to take dialogue out of context there, sport.

[albionmoonlight]

You don't take the people by storm by telling them what to do. You win them over by telling them they can do mostly what they want to do anyway. It's a competitive market out there for hearts and minds, you have to go with what's selling these days.

Drop by your local megachurch, praise the big guy a few times, and talk about your blissful future in heaven, and how much you hate the current group of people different than us we've decided to place in the crosshairs. Then pass the plate. For the win.

Yup.

I could have written the same thing, but without the subtle humor.

[Drake]

You guys must go to different churches every Sunday than I do.

[Galaxy]

As for the rich guy thing, it seems that there are as many Christians as there are versions of Christianity.

That's key.

One thing I found interesting about a lot of super-rich, is they are very private in religion. I remember Bill Gates saying once he didn't believe in God.

[GabeRivers]

Beats me.

If I had a dollar for everytime I'd heard/seen a Christian rave on about Jesus' loving, peacefullness I'd be a rich man. Yet Christians seem to forget that the bible has Jesus stating that he did not come for peace but for violence (Matthew 10:34, amongst others), and he in fact actively promotes the killing of non-believers in this chilling passage:

Luke 19:27: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

I mean, come on, that's as savage as anything you see in Islamic texts, and I garauntee you that the passage won't get read out at the next church service you attend.

If you are going to take the bible litterally and be a good Christian, then you should be out there slaying all the Jews/Islamics/Buddhists/Shintoists/Scientologists that you can get your hands on apparently, like the Islamics are criticized for.


This is a complete distortion of scripture. The Matthew 10:34 scripture refers to Christ's mission being one that involves tension and the persecution of his followers by the world.

The Luke 19:27 verse is the last verse of a long parable Jesus recited (Luke 19:12-27). The words you quote are the words of an earthly king in the parable spoken to his subjects and regards the failure of one of them to properly use the minas the king had left in his care during his absence. They are in no way Christ actively promoting the killing of non-believers.

Your distortion of the teachings of the Bible are probably comparable to what certain sects of Islam are doing with the Koran. Sadly, it happens with both religions.

On another matter, the "eye of the needle" previously referred to was actually a gate leading into Jersusalem. Camels did pass through that gate, but they had to do so in a kneeling posture. Hence the comparsion to rich people entering the kingdom of heaven -- not impossible, but they have to humble themselves by placing the Lord first.

Regarding the original topic of this thread. The rich man approach has been around for a number of years. Although there are some large congregations involved, they do not represent a growing trend among evangelicals -- indeed, they are frowned upon by most.

[Groundhog]

Way to take dialogue out of context there, sport.

Your distortion of the teachings of the Bible are probably comparable to what certain sects of Islam are doing with the Koran. Sadly, it happens with both religions.


Your both exactly right, and that was my entire point. It's very easy to selectively read the bible and find all the passages that support your own views, while ignoring those that are inconvenient. As you say, this is hardly exclusive to Christianity.

Regarding the original topic of this thread. The rich man approach has been around for a number of years. Although there are some large congregations involved, they do not represent a growing trend among evangelicals -- indeed, they are frowned upon by most.

By most of whom? I'd say the majority of Christians see no problem with being rich, nor as it conflicting with their beliefs. The devoutest of the devout may, but they don't represent the vast majority of Christians.

[Ajaxab]

This thread demonstrates that these kinds of discussions are not about the initial topic proposed at all, but rather about interpretation and how to interpret. If one takes the reader-response model of interpretation from people like Stanley Fish of Duke, then one certainly can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say. Reader response criticism accepts whatever interpretation the reader gets from the text. Context means little. More power to the bling-bling folks.

However, if you operate within a traditional hermeneutic textual analysis interpretive frame, suddenly the reader response position becomes untenable. Suddenly it's much more difficult for the bling-bling message to gain a hearing because it's not in a text that is interpreted based on a set of interpretive rules. The traditional hermeneutic asks the reader to submit their interpretation to rules involving things like interpreting in context. As an example, Groundhog did not submit to the interpretive rules about submitting one's interpretation to context--a rule Drake subscribes to.

I don't see this as about who is a Christian and who isn't or what Christians should or should not be practicing. Instead, it's more about interpretation and what constitutes sound, acceptable and ethically responsible interpretation. Do we go Groundhog's way or Drake's way? Why do we or should we choose one as opposed to the other?

[Groundhog]

I don't see this as about who is a Christian and who isn't or what Christians should or should not be practicing. Instead, it's more about interpretation and what constitutes sound, acceptable and ethically responsible interpretation. Do we go Groundhog's way or Drake's way? Why do we or should we choose one as opposed to the other?

The bible is the sole source that Christians have regarding Jesus and his teachings, and I don't believe it should be open for individual interpretation. Not by you average Joe, not by your priest, and not by your pope. Who are they to try reinterpret their holy text that was supposed to have been written by Jesus' followers? But then, I'm not a Christian, either, so what I believe should be the case is probably not that important.

If you read Luke 3:11 and Luke 12:33 though, and then interpret this to mean that Jesus was actually just pointing out that it's just easier to accept and rely on God if you're not wealthy, then that is just far too convenient I'm afraid, as those two passages could not be any clearer or more specific. Yet the sacrifices that it would require are so immense that it's just not realistic for the majority of people, Christian or not, and to counter this fact people re-interpret it to make themselves feel better for not following this to the word.

But, knowing how unrealistic it is in today's times to follow these two passages, should that make someone who doesn't "less Christian" than someone who does? I'm of the opinion that it should, but again I'm not a Christian. I'd imagine that the majority of Christians would disagree, or would at the least not consider it the major issue that I do.

If you are going to allow leeway on this issue though, why not others? This is why veering from the text and ignoring parts or blunting their meaning is dangerous, because without even realising it you are reshaping the religion to suit your own interests, and you are no longer following the religion as defined by it's founders.

I don't see how this can be considered sound or acceptable; not from a religious point of view, at least.

[Ajaxab]

The bible is the sole source that Christians have regarding Jesus and his teachings, and I don't believe it should be open for individual interpretation. Not by you average Joe, not by your priest, and not by your pope. Who are they to try reinterpret their holy text that was supposed to have been written by Jesus' followers? But then, I'm not a Christian, either, so what I believe should be the case is probably not that important.

That's a really interesting position. Care to elaborate a bit? If the Bible shouldn't be open to individual interpretation, what might interpreting it look like? Who would you say should be interpreting it and how might this play itself out?

Could we also say there's a difference between writing and interpretation?

[Ajaxab]

But, knowing how unrealistic it is in today's times to follow these two passages, should that make someone who doesn't "less Christian" than someone who does? I'm of the opinion that it should, but again I'm not a Christian. I'd imagine that the majority of Christians would disagree, or would at the least not consider it the major issue that I do.

dola,
I think your point here relates to previous posts made by St.Cronin about what makes someone a Christian. It seems that the idea about degrees of 'Christian-ness' based on behavior differs from the idea that one is a Christian based on one's position, saved or unsaved, before God. Many non-Christians I have heard speak implicitly assume that being Christian is about what one does while many Christians I have heard speak assume that being Christian is about what God has done.

[Groundhog]

That's a really interesting position. Care to elaborate a bit? If the Bible shouldn't be open to individual interpretation, what might interpreting it look like? Who would you say should be interpreting it and how might this play itself out?


Sure. Let me first say that I know it's impossible to not interpret things individually, because anytime we take in any information we are doing exactly that. When I say that the bible should not be open to individual interpretation, perhaps I should say individual reinterpretation. That still doesn't do much good though, because that still leaves the problem of which interpretation is being reinterpreted.

In nearly 2,000 years the bible's passages have been interpreted and reinterpreted so many times by so many people and for so many different reasons, and I don't think you can say any one interpretation is the "correct" one, because who can judge that? Only God would have the authority to give a definite answer.

So when I say that the bible should not be open for individual interpretation, what I mean is that it should be read as it is, and understood as it is written. I'm not saying it should be taken as 100% literal, as Luke 3:11 is obviously not limiting itself to actual tunics and food but all wealth and necessities, as is Luke 12:33. The meaning of these passages is crystal clear however, and needs no reinterpretation.

It would be possible to take these two passages and declare that to be Christian is to be caring of the poor and needy, and to drop some change in a homeless guy's cup as you walk to work, or maybe help out at a homeless shelter one day of the year, but that's not what these passages are saying. That's a reinterpretation of these passages, and doesn't go nearly as far as what the bible preaches. Both those actions are morally good things I'm sure everyone would agree, but still pale in comparison to what a Christian is expected to do according to those two passages.

Not all the passages in the bible are as clear as these two that I keep dragging out of course, and there lies the big problem. It's a problem that I don't have an answer for, and it's the problem that has led to all the interpretations over history. I just believe that it should be taken as literally as sensibly possible.

For example, the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden is often described as an allegory for many different aspects relating to man's creation, birth, etc., and I've read quite a few discussions focusing on this. My personal feeling is that a book such as the bible should not get broken down like this and studied as if it were a work by Plato, which is the form that these discussions usually take. Plato is fascinating to read and discuss because there are so many layers to it, and it can be understood on a number of levels. The NT is not Plato though, and it was of course written for very different reasons. It is intended to be a guide to Christians of Jesus' teachings. It was not written to be studied and debated for 2,000 years, it was written to be followed.

I don't believe it's authors would have intended it to have confused people or been misleading. Over the many years since it was put to paper times have changed and have rendered certain aspects of it strange and ambiguous, and probably robbed parts of their original meaning because we can't relate to the times it was written in like the first Christians could. Still, it's better to be taken as is and understood with this in mind then to be reinterpreted to express images or ideas that were not intended.

Could we also say there's a difference between writing and interpretation?

In high school we all read plays by Shakespeare, poems by famous poets, and other clever stories by clever people. The teacher would tell us what the various characters, images, and themes used in these writings represent, and we'd try and come up with some of our own. What made these writers so clever was that they wrote in such a way that even though on the surface it's just a story about a king and his three daughters, or a 3 line haiku about a frog jumping in to a pond, they use these simple ideas to tell a story that's far deeper.

It has been a long time since these stories and poems were written though, and over the centuries they have been studied so intensely, and volumes and volumes have been written on what they represent. If Shakespeare had put as much effort in to writing and planning out his stories and themes as these people have in studying them, he'd never have gotten anything written!

I'm not doubting that these authors intended many of the subtleties that they are credited for, but if you look hard enough, you can find meaning in just about anything, and no doubt they are credited for themes that they weren't conscious of when they were writing. People have interpreted what they've written in a variety of ways, but maybe Basho was merely describing a frog jumping in a pond in his famous haiku and nothing more?

[Groundhog]

dola,
I think your point here relates to previous posts made by St.Cronin about what makes someone a Christian. It seems that the idea about degrees of 'Christian-ness' based on behavior differs from the idea that one is a Christian based on one's position, saved or unsaved, before God. Many non-Christians I have heard speak implicitly assume that being Christian is about what one does while many Christians I have heard speak assume that being Christian is about what God has done.

OK, well I'll stay consistent with my view about Christianity sticking as close literally to the bible as possible. A Christian is someone who believes in Jesus' teachings as described in the NT, and accepts him as the son of God and as their Lord.

Someone can fit this criteria yet not follow any of the teachings in the bible and commit countless sins, and many do. In fact, we are expected to, because we are imperfect and can not live a sinless life.

But should a Christian who commits less sin than another be considered more Christian? They have both accepted Jesus as their Lord and saviour, which makes them both Christians, and the only sin that is unforgiveable is blasphemy. Even the most sinful of all Christians would not commit blasphemy because that would stop them being Christian, so no true Christian is capable of commiting the worst sin of all.

I believe all sins excluding blasphemy are considered equal? This would make - from the Christian perspective - the one sin commited by the good Christian and the thousand commited by the bad no better or worse than each other.

I could be wrong on this, because I'm certainly no bible scholar. I just have an interest in religion in general.

[Glengoyne]

To me you have to evaluate individual passages of the bible in the distinct context that they are presented. Groundhog violates that principle clearly in his assessment of Luke 19:27. You can't take a sentence portrayed in the text in one manner, and frame it alone outside of that context.

The other principle to be mindful of is the requirement to reconcile individual passages within the context of all other scripture.

Clearly the "Eye of a Needle" verse makes it seem difficult, if not impossible for the wealthy to "enter the kingdom of heaven". Looking a bit further within the passage Jesus elaborates on this when the Disciples question his statement. The rich were considered to be "blessed" by God, if a man so blessed cannot enter into Heaven then who could? The elaboration declares that "What is impossible for man is possible for God". In other words, no one is able to enter the kingdom of heaven by their own efforts, but through an act of God, it is possible. So all men, not only the rich, would find it impossible to enter the kingdom of heaven.

One other note on the "eye of the Needle" referring to a gate. I've heard that story, but I do not believe it is a credible assessment of the passage. I don't believe you will find many serious biblical scholars making that claim.

[Glengoyne]

...

I believe all sins excluding blasphemy are considered equal? This would make - from the Christian perspective - the one sin commited by the good Christian and the thousand commited by the bad no better or worse than each other.

I could be wrong on this, because I'm certainly no bible scholar. I just have an interest in religion in general.

I think that you have a pretty good handle on the concept, with a caveat about the blasphemy bit.

In short we are all sinful, no one is blameless, and all are equal in that regard. There are no degrees of sin. There are no tiers by which men are ranked by the depth or depravity of their acts. Sin is a chasm separating man from God, and man cannot bridge that gap on his own.