Should as a christian be the forver matyr? Taking the hard road, suffering so others should not have to?

Or should a christian be able to be a friend to others, servant to friends, family,co workers?

Other ideas? More of one, less of another?

A Christian, from what I have gathered from others (my parents, church leaders that have touched on this subeject, etc.) and the Bible, should put others before himself always.  Of course, this isn't an easy thing to do, so it's no surprise that few live like this (even though they preach it).

A Christian nowadays has no need to be a martyr.  The times have changed and Christianity is a MUCH less persecuted religion.  Perhaps in places like China there are still the need for martyrs, but not in North America that I know of.

I feel that rogue made this one for me, so I'll go ahead and drop my comments in here.

Throughout Jesus' life, Jesus regularly dealt with societal expectations placed upon him.  His first overt act listed in the bible is when he stayed behind at the temple to discuss religion with the priests there.  This was clearly not what he was expected to do and, in a way, broke his responsibilities to his parents, and when questioned about it he simply stated he should be at his father's house.  But his first miracle was the wedding at Canae, where Mary asked him to get more wine (why he didn't just run to the liquor store is beyong me).  He says it's too early, but he does it anyway because his mother asks him too.

This continues on through the holy book.  On the one hand, Jesus died for people.  He fulfilled an obligation he had to everyone.  Yet on the other, he tells people to leave behind their family, their wives, parents, children, jobs, their unburied dead, to follow him (Jesus), a clear break with what society expects.  This, in turn, seems to break with what so many Christian churches have been doing; encouraging us to work and live normal lives and be obedient to our bosses.  If I said I was going to leave my wife and my son and all of my stuff, pack my backpack, grab $1,000 and buy a ticket to Israel (or even set up a hospital for the poor in downtown DC), my priest would say I'm crazy and probably, ultimately say I'm being sinful through neglect.  And that's me doing something 'good'.  If I cut all ties and spent two months hiking to NYC and meditating, I can only imagine the reaction I'd get!

I see this even sharper among those churches who encourage or require clergy to marry.  A family IS a liability, and does tie you down.  If Jesus was married, was he not negligent to his wife and child(ren), wandering through the desert, not making money, and ultimately getting himself (intentionally) killed?  If he *KNEW* he would be putting his life at risk and knew he couldn't provide for his family, what sort of tomfoolery is he getting into making a family anyway?

So I have to ask, DID Jesus mean for us to break social mores and live as individuals, unfettered by the needs and desires of the soceity around us?  Or did he intend for us to live quiet, stable lives, following our priest unquestioningly, taking part in a structures, organized religion?  Why or why not?

I think the point from Jesus is that social mores and what is right are two independent things, so we should make a skeptical inquiry, inquire in prayer, and decide for ourselves.  At some point, we must render unto Caesar...but that doesn't mean to surrender unto Caesar.

Could you elaborate?  What about the specific examples I cited?  Why is it wrong (or right) to leave your family and responsibilities to live a life of poor charity?

This is your section on that remark.  You didn't give references, but I think if you look closer it's not meant to be taken literally but instead to show that God should be at the center focus.  We can discuss more if you give me the cites.

Matthew 8:22, "But Jesus told him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."

Imagine if your father had recently died.  Of course, his affairs need to be dealt with, the inheretance(sp?) and bills addressed, his body must be properly blessed and buried, probably with some ritual involving a priest or rabbi.  All of this is expected of a dutiful child.  Presumably in this specific case, the child was in fact burying the father because he specifically was expected to do so (lack of other children or what have you).  Yet Jesus does NOT say 'fulfill your social obligations of respect to your father and then come follow me'.  He says 'forget your responsibilities to your father.  Follow me now.'  This is a strong passage.

By the LDS belief, you have said Jesus married and had at least one child.  Yet presumably he also realized early in his life precisely how difficult his life would be.  Assuming he aspired to outdo John the Baptist, who he has had significant contact with, he can expect not to be making much money or even to survive very long.  Would a responsible man marry knowing he is likely to leave the woman and child widowed, without money, without support of any kind?  This too seems like a direct violation of his social responsibility.

Look even at how he gets his disciples.  Two of them (Andrew and Peter?  Can't remember off the top of my head) are fishing with their father.  He says "come, follow me" and they do.  No "goodbye dad, thanks for all the fish", no "tell Suzie I love her".  They don't even bother folding up their nets!  They simply pick up and go.  We seem to believe at least one of the apostles was married, yet I doubt Jesus' campaign made enough money to pay for much.  This man has a WIFE, a wife who likely is not able to support herself, but he dedicates his resources and time not towards his family, but towards this crazy man wandering through the desert talking with lepers!!!  How is this socially responsible?

I didn't say this is the LDS belief.  I don't know of any official position on this.  However, at some point, whether in this life or the next, he would have to be married.

Yes, this is what happens in the LDS church too.  The apostles give up their professions the moment they are called to be apostles.  They don't also give up their families.

Now, presumably, if people are paying their tithes (as chastized in Malachi), then the church would be able to support those who have answered a call to apostlehood.

But ultimately, Jesus is calling only a few (12 in that case) to drop everything and join him.

As for your other point, no matter how hard life gets, I don't see why that would equate to not having the ultimate fulfillment in life:  a family.  People in love don't say, "My life is going to be hard, so I shouldn't get married."  They get married and work it out together.  So I don't see Jesus as giving up what is the primary source of reward in life (a family) just in order to fulfill his mission as the Christ.

I'm sorry. You had written a lot about this in the Grail thread, then about families in the LDs thread, so I had made an assumption there.



I am aware that most LDS people are called to go on at least one mission.  A friend of mine recently got back from his in Mexico.  I think this is a good idea.  But how can you really put yourself 'in the line of fire', as it were, if you have to concern yourself with the wellbeing of someone as defenseless as a child?  Could Mother Teresa have done her work if she was raising three children at the same time?  I suspect not.  Yet she is widely regarded as one of the most charitable people of the 20th century, as a true testament to God.



It seems to me that he didn't!!  Rather, he called EACH of us to follow him, to bear our own crosses.  I started out my last post with what he said to Random Guy #23.  Presumably, RG23 COULD have been another apostle.  He could have followed Christ.  But he didn't because he felt obliged to do other things.  If Jesus only wanted 12 people, why didn't he say "that's alright, Bob.  You're doing enough.  Bury your dad and pray ten hail Mary's and you're good."  But he didn't!  He said come follow me right this instant.  Put away your life and follow.  Presumably, the man did not.



I am not sure how Jesus would plan how to 'work out' being tortured and killed with his wife.  I just can't imagine discussions in that arena turning out anything really productive.  "Sweetie, I can't do the dishes on Friday, I'm getting crucified.  It's on the calendar, remember?"  But this really breaks away from my original point.

Currently I am supporting a wife and a child and a half.  Out of the two and a half of them, none can drive (legally).  None (I believe) have the skills required to support themselves financially.  One would be able to take care of herself in a foreign country, but perhaps not a hostile one.  I wouldn't feel comfortable taking my little boy even into SE DC to work at a soup kitchen.  Yet God did not call me to "raise your kids and feed them quality yogurt and broccoli".  He called me (and all of us) to carry our cross, to help the poor and the sick, to give up mortal things in exchange for the glories of heaven.  But I need my mortal things!  I need my $40k paycheck (even though, by global standards, that makes me rich and therefore ineligible for the glories of heaven).

My father makes far more than I do, probably in the six digit range, and is a deacon in the church.  I *DO* believe he is rich.  He lives modestly and gives large sums to charitable, but I still would argue that he is rich (and certainly has a ton of cash in savings).  I know much of it is for things like college funds and his retirement fund, for him to live comfortably when he's done working and to make our lives easier.  But again, Jesus said it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.  Is my father wrong for making good money, even if he gives 10 or 20% to the church?  Is he wrong for enjoying the fruits of his labor?

(I apologize for any rantiness that's developing as well as any nonsenical run-ons.  It's 1am.  I really should go to bed already.)

It is my personal belief based on the evidence and the LDS beliefs, and I think many share that belief.


Actually, I was referring to being called as an apostle.  For missions, young men are urged to go on a mission at the age of 19...obviously, while single...and young women, if they want to and are unmarried, when they are 21.  Couples can go on missions later in life when their children are grown.

A few are called to apostle or similar positions while still with a young family, but it is like any other job.  They devote time to that and time to their family.  Mother Teresa certainly could have done what she did with a family...assuming an intact home with mother and father.  :)  Besides, the best time to do this is after the kids are grown.  Most people aren't spawning into their old age.

But to say you can't do what Christ said with a family is to state that the family is not the number one obligation and blessing a person can have.  I believe it is.


But I'm talking about full out, drop everything, quit your job type of following him.  That's what an apostle does, not a disciple.


Please give me the cite so I have a reference.  I think there is more to this than you have put down.


I don't think he would pass up marriage and a family just because he would die, particularly if he was setting an example for us.  I know someday I will die, probably before my wife, yet I still chose to marry her.  Jesus could have been married for close to 20 years before he was killed.  That's plenty of time to have a happy family and prepare them for what's coming.


Although this is a Jewish exaggeration, said to make you think, not take too literally, I heard about a gate called the "eye of the needle" in Jesus' day, where you had to unpack your bags before going through.  So in other words, it would mean that you had to unburden yourself of earthly riches before entering into the kingdom of God.  Nothing to really do with just having wealth or being poor.

The bible would seem to disagree.  It is rife with examples of people (Paul and I believe it was John?) who wrote clearly that if marriage is undertaken, it is as a concession, not as an ends unto itself.  It seems pretty clear that you are better off NOT marrying.  I can find direct quotes if you want, but I'm sure you're already familiar with them.



ALright.  For me apostle and disciple are pretty much the same thing.  Either way, I think he was still calling all of us to drop everything.  He clearly didn't limit himself to the twelve.  Is there a reason you feel that some of us are called to follow Jesus with our whole life, sacraficing everything else, and some of us aren't?



It's a brief passage, but I already listed it in Matthew.  8:22 I think it was.



Yes, but you expect you'll die at a ripe, old age, when your retirement check is coming in regularly and your kids are supporting themselves.  Would you have married and had kids if you thought you'd die in your second year of law school?



That's true, and I'll admit, I don't know much about how life worked out for a widow at that time.  But it seems to me that a widow of a man who made no money during his life, and then died young, would not be off especially well.



I've heard the same, but I disagree with your conclusion.  Jesus asks most of his followers to give up their worldly possessions, to live meekly.  It would seem to me that spend $50k on a brand-spanking new car with features you don't need WOULD be sinful when that same money could go towards feeding half a village for a year.

</quote>
I didn't say this is the LDS belief.  I don't know of any official position on this.  However, at some point, whether in this life or the next, he would have to be married.
<quote>

Kind of off topic, but biblically, He will be married.  He's already betrothed, and will be returning for his bride, the church.

Katisara, you have to watch those verses you site :-) The very next thing Jesus said after the rich man/camel comment was "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God."

The old testament is littered with wealthy men, and there were members of the early church who had money and status.

I think a lot of what this thread boils down to is calling.  If we are called by the Lord to do something that violates culture or social expectations, then yes, we are to do so, otherwise we can follow them.

As far as your father, we're in no position to judge him.  I do think, however, that the western church has strayed from the radical lifestyle we are called to as Christians.  We do amass quite a bit of wealth and possesions, which would be better used to help the poor and needy.  I believe that simplicity is one of the core Christian disciplines, but it takes a working out of our sanctification in order to get there.

I bike a lot, buy second hand things, try to live a simple lifestyle in order to free money up for the kingdom.  My wife and I do have a weekness for eating out though, that we continue to try and improve.

One of the core things that could go along with your question is that glass-fronted square idol that we keep in our living rooms and arrange the furniture to point at, and yet very few preachers seem to feel comfortable preaching against it.

Quix

Quix

Yeah, my wife almost threw out our fish tank because I spent too much time watching it.  We just got fewer fish and that seemed to solve it.

I do agree with where you're coming from, that people should try to live simply, should try to drop materialist things.  But then, what do you do with all your extra money?  Is it Christian to spend $1M on a car you won't drive?  Or is that just wasteful?  Is it Christian to spend $20k on a degree you don't intend to use?  Certainly we're expected to engage in certain things for relaxation (and the television does provide well for that, in moderation), but at what point has it gone from spending money because it genuinely helps your psychological need for relaxation to frittering money away wastefully?

:-)  Funny.  The eleventh commandment, "Though shalt worship no more than 5 fish in any household."



This is where the direct relationship with the creator comes in.  Christians rely on the Spirit to guide and convict us.  In my walk so far, it has been a pattern of increasing the mark.  He leads me to eliminate certain things in my life, and adopt other things.  Later, down the road, He highlights another area of my life that I didn't think was a problem, but shows me how it is limiting the process of sanctification in my life, and a closer walk with Him.

$1M on a car you won't drive (or even on a car you would drive) seems pretty clearly out of anything one would count as living in the discipline of Christian simplicity.  The degree is a little harder.  What are the many benefits of a degree that don't include getting a job in the specific field you were trained in.  My wife got her bachelors in German.  She rarely speaks German, and doesn't have a job that uses that skill.  On the other hand, having a bachelors was important to get the job she has, and her time in Europe, as well as all of her classes, in her major, and general education, have improved her mind and soul.

There isn't actually any need to spend money for relaxation.  Public libraries are very easy to find, talking with people you care about, walking or running outside... you get the point.

I have read that television actually is very useless as a form of relaxation.  I remember reading a study done on people to find out how relaxing different activities are, and how much effort it takes to do them.  The people in the study ended up judging watching television and doing moderate housework as equally strenuous.  Another study tested various biological indicators, and found that watching television uses similar areas of the brain as dreaming, but actually show signs of stress rather than relaxation.

As for what to do with extra money, if you are blessed to have such, there are countless needs, from feeding and clothing the needy, to supporting your favorite political cause ;-)

Yeah, but I won't begrudge someone who spends a few hundred on some genuine entertainment he'll use.  Plus, given the cost of gas and late fees, library use CAN add up (for some of us).  My big hobby now is reading and lockpicking.  I've spent about $20 on the former and $50 on the latter in the last twelve months.  But it has gone a long way towards improving my enjoyment of life and overall knowledge!



I think it depends on what you watch.  We regularly watch documentaries and movies we can discuss and analyze later.  I *heart* Joseph Campbell.

I agree with you there.  I don't think entertainment is necessarily wasteful just because it costs money, just wante to point out that entertainment doesn't require money.

Quix