I feel like some of the angels would probably be able to calculate very large primes easily. I’m not an angeloligist, but maybe the ones that are wheels all covered in eyes.
That's the pre-Renaissance, theological idea of angels. I would presume the OP probably knows that given their esoteric reference to Ophanim (TIL! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophanim), but also understands that the vast majority of people, including Christians, have a metaphysical conception of angels primarily informed by comic books and films.
> conception of angels primarily informed by comic books and films.
Dogma was a great/funny film.
Looking at the Ophanim link and related pictures reminded me of Contact(1997), not great+boring imo, but your comment reminded me of the wheel thing in the movie, and now I wonder if it was something intended (being a heavenly chariot and all) I could have easily missed it — or if that is just a coincidence
Maybe kinda analogous to the difference between declarative and imperative languages. They (supposedly) don't do step-by-step reasoning to get at the truth, they just "see" it. Like the old story about Bhaskara's proof of the Pythagorean Theorem being, just, "Behold."
Only if you can also take the worldwide network and infrastructure that make it possible. Though a room full of human computers processing math out loud to send wealth around seems more associated with another part of the afterlife ;)
Is that how the rich men are squeezing into heaven these days?
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"
There's a theory that the eye of the needle was a narrow gate in Jerusalem's city wall that was notoriously hard for camels to squeeze through. But seems the hard evidence for that is limited.
That story is only tracked back to the 1400's, so not credible. The currently favoured theory is that this was a translation error. Apparently in Aramaic (the language of Judaea and Galilee), the word for "camel" is very close to the word for "rope". As with all parables (and this does qualify as a parable) it may be intended to reward some thought - e.g. the only way of getting a rope through the eye of needle is to strip away almost all of it, rather than being a flat negation.
Is your source on this that 90s era website I’ve seen passed around for 20 years? You truly think that thousands of theologians over hundreds of years never noticed this one simple coincidence?
Sorry, I don't know which web site you are referring to. However this is a primarily a matter of linguistics. Checking in to it, it wasn't Aramaic that was the issue, but Greek: κάμηλον (kamēlon, “camel”) versus κάμιλον (kamilon, “rope”).
If by theology, you mean the possible interpretation of "strip away almost everything", while it is debatable whether this particular parable actually means that, it is always accepted that a rich person can give up what they have. This is literally the words of Jesus (Mark 19:16-22), the context in which the parable is given.
Francis of Assisi is an example of one person who made this decision.
Much nicer interpretation than the simple impossibility.
Plus takes into account that in text criticism the more difficult spelling is usually the more correct, then rendered into the more common through lapsus calami/scribe error.
thousands of theologians over hundreds of years probably passed it around until the '90s, when a few learned HTML and put it online. I doubt the website's authors were the first.
This meaning seems somewhat contrary to readings in the OT (Ecclesiastes 4:12), about how a person alone is defeated, but two can fight back-to-back, and how three are a braided cord. I think given how other verses speak about not serving God and Mammon (money), that the rich are asked to give their riches to follow Jesus is a direct appeal to that given rich man, so that he could braid his cord with theirs, and have the man and his money work toward spreading the Good News. These braiding metaphors are similar to comparisons of Gentiles being grafted as a new vine onto the covenant with Abraham.
The parable of the talents and the connection between investment skill and being blessed by the master show that being rich or good with money is considered a good thing that can be used poorly or toward evil, not simply evil in itself. It is the love of money that is the root of all evil, not that money is evil in and of itself. Money is simply a tool fit for a purpose, as Jesus shows with the miracle of the fish with a coin in its mouth which was used to pay their temple taxes, so that Jesus could keep the legalistic Pharisee and Sadducee busybodies off their backs for a little while longer.
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." Or something like that.
I don't see this as an issue. There are only so many images to use in a subsistence agriculture society, hence sheep and grain coming up over and over. Sometimes similar images will be used to make different points.
If you want something genuinely difficult, have a look at the alternative explanation of the parable of the talents where the man who does not commit usury is the good guy. One of the gospels (Luke) has additional detail about the "nobleman" who goes off to which suggests this is Herod the Great, (bad guy - see Lk 19:27), so the original meaning is up for debate. Personally I believe that a large part of the point of parables was to spark debate, so we should not assume that the meanings are obvious.
I think there are consistent usages and expressions in the OT and NT that show how God understands money to be a tool to be used, and not and asset to be hoarded or an aspect of vice to be indulged in. It's a fine distinction, you could even say it's threading a needle.
So basically it says “you can’t take it with you, so do something good with it while you’re alive instead of hoarding it like you can take it with you.”
Up to a point, but there are other parables which make death explicit, e.g. the rich farmer who tore down his barns to build bigger ones, and was told he would die that night. This parable doesn't link this to having limited time, it's just about "sell everything, give to the poor" to be saved.
The key of the teaching comes after that metaphor, when the disciples ask how one can be saved and Jesus answers that “with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
These words eventually became the foundation of Christian charity in an Ancient world that until then despised and rejected the weak and infirm.
Many of our modern day institutions trace their origin to that Christian charity, to those few enigmatic words.
(Peter Brown's “Through the Eye of a Needle” is a great book to know more about this process.)
To be clear, it isn’t wealth per se that is taught is evil, but attachment to it and pining for it. The prosperity gospel demonstrates this perverse and unhealthy lust for riches.
Many don’t pay attention to the fuller context.
And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
The rich only make up a very small percentage of any society, so why would the disciples ask “Who then can be saved?”. They ask, because it isn’t wealth per se, but attachment and greed. The poor and modest in possessions, who made up most of Christ’s disciples, were vulnerable to the very same vice.
Experience confirms this. Look at the aspirations of the poor in our societies. They are often vulgar, base, and materialistic.
It's clear that that proper practice for a wealthy person would be to immediately jettison the wealth. Matt 19:21 NIV: "Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
So if you're wealthy and poor people exist, you're in a state of sin. Christianity is an apocalyptic religion, you're to assume the world could end tomorrow so your instructions aren't to simply not want the money, it's to get rid of it and donate it all to charity immediately.
The story in Matthew 19:21 has exactly the same point and precedes this very parable.
> But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. [Then follows the camel and the needle.]
The rich man fails the test because he is unable to give up his wealth; his heart is not in the right place. He loves the world and he loves his riches more than he loves God. It is entirely possible to have your heart in the right place and be rich, as demonstrated by several other examples.
Another example is in Acts, where Peter kills a man and his wife because they lie about how much money they're giving - they were perfectly free, and would have been saved, even had they withheld their money from the commons. Paul also says there are not many rich men that are Christians - but there are some.
The attitude that "ahah, you didn't give your money to the poor, so you're not a REAL Christian doing what you're supposed to do" is put into the mouth of a figure in the Bible. That figure is Judas.
> Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
> 4Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,
> 5Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
Jesus, and the other apostles, are not saying that you can't be rich. They're saying you cannot love money more than God, and even trusting in money is ultimately a foolish endeavor because your life and prosperity are in God's hands.
If you are snidely arguing that people aren't Christians or following God simply because they haven't given all their money to the poor, you are falling into the same error as Judas, and the same general category of error as the Pharisees.
It's almost as if the Bible has different authors with different audiences and different aims in their writing, all of whom had no idea or plan for their writing to be codified into a single text by third parties who in turn had their own audience and goals.
The rich man sorrowfully turning away from Jesus after he tells him that to be perfect, he should give up all his wealth, and then the story of the camel through the eye of the needle immediately following it as a reflection on the man's actions, is repeated almost word-for-word in Luke 18.
Luke and Acts internally claim to be written by the same author, and modern scholarship agrees they were written by the same author.
You left out Jesus' reply: "“Leave her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of my burial." She was using the expensive oil to honor him/God, not keeping it for personal use. So not really a rebuttal.
Well you are also commanded to pay your taxes (render undo Caesar what is Caesar's) and obey+respect authorities (slaves obey your masters). All part of being "in the world" but not "of the world". You could infer the NT is advising against being politically active in any form but I admit you don't have to read it that way.
It doesn't say pay your taxes as long as there is no waste. Or the government spends the money wisely. It just says pay.
Doesn't say obey kings/rulers/masters if they treat you well. Or you voted for them. Or you agree with their policies. It just says obey.
All of which is very much the opposite of Evangelical Christianity in the modern USA - much of it is completely corrupted by political power and wealth. It usually only makes people angry or dismissive when you point that out.
I've already explained why this interpretation is wrong. Your interpretation is only "clear" if you ignore context and prooftext. The rich man's response to Jesus's challenge reveals his attachment to wealth, even as he stands before God Himself who has the rich man's best interest in mind. (Consider also John 12:1-50.)
The message is that spiritual goods are superior to material goods, and that the former should be prioritized over the latter, or that the latter ultimately exist in service of the former. The wealth of the rich man is not the source of his obstacle to spiritual good; it is his attachment to his wealth that stands in the way.
If I put an effort into not being cynical, I would say public funds spent on R&D are the more accurate tax on hope. We are collecting money for Progress and Progress will save us from today’s inescapable facts. We hope it will not replace them with something worse.
I disagree, the vast majority of people I've known who gamble understand perfectly well that the odds are against them, they're not choosing to do it because they wrongly believe the EV to be positive.
In some cases it's because the enjoyment they get is worth losing money (and/or they wrongly believe it will be), in some cases it's because even though buying weekly lottery tickets is extremely unlikely to be worth it, the tiny possibility of winning big on it is the only way they could possibly become a millionaire and they want to fantasise that it might still happen.
And the ones who are gambling in the belief that the odds are in their favour, it's not because of their maths, it's because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that their knowledge / opinions on a particular sport are good enough to beat the bookies.
Sure there are also people who think things like "my roulette strategy is bound to work", but it's a tiny proportion.
> Sure there are also people who think things like "my roulette strategy is bound to work", but it's a tiny proportion.
Depends on which activities you gamble on, I suppose.
There's an old quote: “When as a young and unknown man I started to be successful I was referred to as a gambler. My operations increased in scope. Then I was a speculator. The sphere of my activities continued to expand and presently I was known as a banker. Actually I had been doing the same thing all the time.”
I mean, if the stance is "Progress is bad, actually," then yes obviously government funding of basic research is really bad. If your stance is "ROI is bad, too" then absolutely, government funding of research is boneheaded.
