CHRISTIAN HYPOCRISY AND MAMMON
Jesus promised money and houses in Heaven. He never said one word about
how wonderful and kind and compassionate and loving we will be in Heaven.
Jesus replaced earthly materialism with a heavenly one. If people are
materialistic it will depend on what they have. The problem will be bad.
But to promise an earth style heaven is just telling even those who cannot be
materialistic that they can be after all - just not in this world. That is
not bad but horrendous. It is cruel if it is a false promise.
Jesus said, "“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it." See Matthew 13. He clearly said that all must be sold in order to gain a life with God. Christians say it means that Christians can have money and property but as long as they use them only in the service of God and God's people. You are to be happy to give up your millions if the poor need it.
Christianity has given us the well-known saying: “The
love of money is the root of all evil”. St Paul made that statement (1 Timothy
6:10). Theologians explain that the love of money means an attachment to
material things which causes all sin for sin is always choosing a thing instead
of God. When a person commits adultery the love of money has caused it because
it makes a person prefer pleasures to God.
This teaching leads to hypocrisy. If religion really believes it then why does
it not tell people to live with the bare essentials and do that itself? If money
causes sin then it is a sin to have it. Having the bare essentials alone can be
excused on the grounds that you can’t live without some material things.
Jesus gave his core teaching in the sermon on the mount.
Read Matthew 6. He said no man can be the slave of two masters for he will
love one and hate the other. It is interesting how he thinks you can love
a master at all! Anyway he says you will love one and hate the other.
You will treat one with respect and the other with disrespect. So he says
if God is your master you cannot also let money be your master. So those
who love money hate God. This is a very naive teaching but surprisingly
few have a problem with adopting it and preaching it with a straight face.
But he goes on to say that the impossibility of loving God and money is why he
says that you must not worry about your life or food or clothing for God will
provide.
A rich man once asked Jesus what he had to do to enter Heaven. Jesus asked him
if he kept the commandments and he said he did. Jesus told him he lacked only
one thing and that was not selling all he had and giving it to the poor.
The man said he kept all the commandments all his life.
The Vatican has a tough time with telling lies to make Jesus’ words of no effect for it is passionately in love with money and courts those who are rich and who love their wealth to make converts of them and keep them Catholic. The Church says it is only your duty to obey Jesus’ command to get rid of wealth if you are over-attached to it – that is if you would rather sin against God or do harm than part with it. But you cannot get rich without being egotistic and miserly to some degree. Miserliness the sin of holding on to money that the poor need better and since God is generous to us we have to be generous to him and do his will for he wants the poor helped. The pat-answer clearly shows how deep the concern of the Church for the poor really is. It is a pat-answer for Jesus never says the rich man gave money the place God should have in his heart. The story does not say why Jesus had a problem with him. It could be yes that the man cared too much for money or it could be that wealth is just a sin!
The rich man went away from Jesus for he had great
wealth. So Jesus then comments how hard it is for the rich to be saved.
The apostles were aghast! Why were the apostles so astonished when Jesus
said it is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom? He then says it is easier for a
camel to pass through the eye of a needle and they respond as the Mark gospel
says by being more shocked than ever! He says it is impossible indicating that
he meant a real needle you hold in your hand. Their response shows they
regarded him as saying it was impossible.
So Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven. The idea that the eye of the
needle is a gate in Jerusalem is speculation and very unlikely to be correct. No
text indicates that a gate was meant. And Jesus was far from Jerusalem when he
said about the eye of a needle. The gate is a Christian urban legend. (Urban
Legends of the New Testament: 40 Common Misconceptions, 63). Needle means it is
impossible. It is insane to imagine that a camel getting through a tight gate
compares to a rich man getting to Heaven. It is obvious that whatever Jesus
meant he was saying it was impossible for the rich to be saved.
Suppose the reason Jesus had a problem with him is that the rich man is blind to
the uselessness of treasure and to how hard the wealth has made him. Wealth then
is dangerous for you can think you are not attached to it and be really
attached. Jesus said a rich man, not some rich men. The Church lies that he
didn’t have all rich men in mind. Also people who are not rich can be even more
attached to material goods than any rich person. Jesus was condemning wealth in
itself. People who are attached to wealth in a bad way will defraud but
this man said he never did that and Jesus agreed. The man then was not
breaking any social-moral rules.
The gospel says that Jesus looked at the rich man who
said he never defrauded or broke the commandments and loved him. Jesus tells him
he has one sin – which seems to be either wealth or attachment to wealth. He
says afterwards that it is impossible for a rich man to enter heaven – meaning
like this one and that only God can make it possible. Jesus had been
called good teacher by this man and Jesus retorted that nobody is good but God
alone so why is he calling him good? Attempts are made to argue, "Jesus
did not deny that he was good but was saying that as God alone is good Jesus if
good must be God." That is not an obvious interpretation and so must be
discarded. Jesus is best understood as denying that he was good and the
apostles at the time would have seen him as a sinner like everybody else. Why is
Jesus talking that way to a man who apart from one sin is sinless! That
makes the man very special! The man would be regarded as a saint by the
vast majority of the human race. It is interesting that regardless
of how holy this man was and despite his wealth he never defrauded.
The Bible speaks of Abraham and Job and Joseph of
Arimathea as rich men who God approved of. This seems to contradict Jesus’ firm
assertion that there was no salvation for a rich man. But the scriptures never
say they held on their wealth. The rich in the Bible means those who fail to
give so that in reality they really have nothing. Wealth would not be a sin if
you had it but had no way of getting rid of it. It would be an evil then but not
a sin.
The apostles realised that in a sense everybody was rich so they asked how
anybody could be saved. Also the apostles would have felt that Jesus was
contradicting the doctrine of the Old Testament that wealth is a sign of God’s
favour (Deuteronomy 8:18). They felt that if the rich were blessed and still
damned then there was no hope for anybody. Jesus simply replies that it is
impossible to get right with God unless God makes it possible (Matthew 19:26).
Most of the saints of Rome lived in convents and supported these institutions
which depended on a good deal of money to exist. They claimed to be living in
perfect poverty. They took a vow of poverty, a vow not to own anything and then
they depend on the property of others. Imagine a man who was told to do what he
liked with a friend’s money by that friend. It is still the friend’s money. If
the man takes a vow of poverty then isn’t it hypocrisy for him to enjoy that
money? The vow of poverty is for sacrifice for it is not owning that is bad but
what you do with what you own makes it bad or good. The vow of poverty is a
mockery therefore the other vow that nuns and monks take, obedience to
superiors, is also evil for it is handing over your will to hypocrites.
In Luke 12, Jesus tells the disciples, a group including the apostles, to sell
what they have for the poor. Then he told them a parable on the need to be ready
for the coming of the master. Peter asked him if this parable was for them and
not for everybody. This was because the preparation Jesus asked for was giving
away all property for otherwise the query would have been inexplicable. This is
because Peter would have known that everybody would be expected to be ready for
Jesus if Jesus simply meant: “Be good to prepare for the coming of the master”.
Some say that Jesus never answered the question and this silence alone implies
that Peter was asking a stupid question. But Jesus’ answer was only that anybody
who does not prepare is not much of a servant. In other words, anybody who does
not get ready is bad which can only be referring to the everybody in Peter’s
question. The gospel says it is a reply.
When the Church says that pre-marital sex performed with more love than happens
in marriage is still wrong then why can’t it teach that wealth is wrong in
itself just like the sex? It’s not morality the Church has but prejudice.
Jesus though he was supposedly God refused to avail of the worlds comforts and
slept rough and had no money. He asked a rich man to part with all he had and
give it to the poor and sleep rough with him. Clearly then if you keep money
that you could use to save those worse off from death then that is a grave sin.
All of us today are rich by the standards of Jesus’ time. Middle class people
have better comforts than wealth King Herod.
Jesus told a huge crowd that nobody could be his disciple without giving up all
he had (Luke 12:33:14:33). He meant what he said when he said it to all these
people for they were not theologians who would work out if he was talking
literally or not so he was speaking literally. He said that our money must be
donated all to the poor (an indication that the apostles may have set up the
Church against his will for you can’t run a Church without money or it could
indicate that the apostles were apostates or perhaps fakes) for your heart lies
where your treasure and he wants our hearts to lie in Heaven meaning we must
have no treasures on earth. Jesus also stated that just as a king will make
peace with a stronger rival king to avoid the latter waging a war he cannot win,
so we learn that nobody can be a disciple of Jesus’ unless he gives up all his
possessions. His logic is clearly that to be a man of God in reality you have to
recognise that you cannot win if you try to fight for material things and yet be
detached from them. The only way to make peace with them is to get rid of them.
Nevertheless, the Church pretends that he meant they must be detached from these
things but may still use the things of the world. Then why didn’t he say that
then? The gospel itself accuses the Church of theft because it is stealing for a
Church to try and make money out of the gospel when the gospel does not allow
it. Worse the Church tries to get the blame for the money being given and taken
on Jesus! It is interesting that the Church claims a deeper insight into matters
of faith and morals than any other organisation for it is the true Church of
God. If it looks into things that deeply then there is no excuse for it missing
what Jesus said about money and it is clear that it only looks deep when it
suits it. It claims the ban on birth control is one of its deep insights which
is a sick and cruel boast for there are many things in which its insights are
completely off the wall.
Is it unreasonable to expect all Catholics to give all they have to the poor?
The world would be so impressed by such a gesture that the Catholics would
probably end up happier and better off than before. They will be treasured
everywhere.
Only a minority would give all away anyway.
Christians enjoying their comforts are just fakes. Is money neutral? Is it only
how you use it that is good or bad? Many say yes but what if having money
though not bad in itself makes you love yourself and your trappings far more
than you should and others less than you should? Love that is limited is
not love at all for real love holds that when it comes to doing the right thing
it has to be the right thing not the right enough thing. If love is the
most important thing then to make a clever copy of it is the worst sin despite
how nice you may seem!