Incorrect.

According to the gospels, it is 'harder for a rich man to ender the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle'.

That Jesus bloke - dead dodgy.

You must be a Christian. You are quoting the Bible out of context!

Here it is I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

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."

When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for the rich to 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 the rich to enter the kingdom of God."

etc, etc (Matthew 19: 16-30, if you want to check )

The Bible is a fascinating book, both as a literary work and as a rich source of nifty messages that can make a person think, when they are feeling in the mood to think.

So all the rich people go to hell then ?

Where does the church (of most denominations) stand on that sort of thing then, hording riches and all ?

Nope. The passage continuesWhere does the church (of most denominations) stand on that sort of thing then, hording riches and all ?'"

Not out of context at all, as you've very helpfully illustrated.

And yes, it is a book to make people think

What we're back to here is a number of things: 1) that being a decent human being is less important in terms of Jesus/God than worshipping God. We see this in the commandments too. Which to most people would seem ethically perverse.

2) Since God created everything and knows everything (according to Judeo-Christian tradition), we're back to the point that there is no choice. So the rich man doesn't choose any path; it has already been ordained him by God at the moment of creation.

3) Ultimately, whether you get into heaven or not is down to whether God is having a good day or not when you die.

I wish we had a few more Hindus, Sikhs, Taoists and what have you on here, I'm getting a bit bored of Jesus and his sycophantic mates.

I've just started reading rlthisrl as an antidote to exactly what you mention.

I'd be interested to know how you get on, I've nearly read that a couple of times but the feeling that "well, that's all going to be a bit negative" has put me off.

I'll let you know.

I'd heard that she was a bit dodgy.

It was first published in something like 1995 and what it seems to be, thus far, is a very calm look at her, at her public image, at the reality etc. Nobody has ever really been able to refute Hitchens's assertions.

Only a week or so ago research was published in Canada which, in essence, supports the research done by Hitchens. rlStoryrl

It's quite interesting. Part of her 'idea' was that these poor people who she picked up should die in a manner that reflected the pain suffered by Christ. So, for instance, although she raised millions and millions of pounds, she'd let cancer sufferers die in pain. Of course it was different when she was ill – then she'd be taken to some of the world's finest hospitals.

I do like Hitchens's description of her (not in the book) as "a thieving fanatical Albanian dwarf".

The new edition that I'm reading was published after access to her private letters was allowed – and after Hitchens's own death. Extraordinarily, the letters appear to reveal her own huge doubts about her faith – yet she continued that approach of, in effect, facilitating the suffering of the poor.

I didn't realise she was a real person, I always thought she was some sort of animatronic prune.

That would suggest you don't know how to read for context.

This would suggest that you're continuing with your usual patronising attitude over religion.



Thank you. You have now revealed your own total ignorance of the [iBible[/i.

Lot. Bloke living in Sodom. Or Gomorrah. One or the other.

God thought him a good geezer. In fact, better than good – the only one from the two towns who was worth saving, since God had decided to kill off everyone else because they were doing what he'd designed and created them to do.

Two 'visitors' arrive in Lot's community. Might have been angels. Local blokes took one look and thought

Actually, he's an Arminianist, on the basis that he both argues that God knows and has pre-decided everything – but that choice still exists.

You can't resist, can you, love? What was it last time – lecturing me on the nature of evangelicalism?



No. I've just described both Arminianism and, most particularly, Calvanism. In other words, it doesn't matter a flying you-know-what what you do – God has already decided what will happen to you, regardless. So you'd better hope he's not all menstrual.

It's a weakness of mine. A weakness of yours is to assume the worst about people.


I'm not perfect like you hon.

I do know the story you refer to but I didn't recognise it from your original description. Which doesn't surprise me really as the story is not about gang rape.


You will have read more of his/her posts than I have but based upon what I have read of his/her posts, I would place them under the Calvanist banner.


If you say so.