Attention Christian Triathletes! (Page 4)

I didn't take it out of context at all. I presented the context (sermon on the mount) and quoted enough of the passage to provide the entire conversation. What you've said here is your interpretation of what Jesus meant -- you believe that he was just suggesting you give to the poor.  The words say "If you want to be perfect, sell your possessions and give to the poor" and "It is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" . Take these whatever way you want: as a directive, a suggestion, a metaphor, poetry. Most people do just that. I simply wanted to present one of several passages in which the Bible addresses wealth and poverty, because a former poster stated that the Bible says nothing about the making money.

I also agree with the poster who said basing arguments on the Bible is a losing battle, because it's not a consistent collection of books written at one time with one voice. It's all over the place, and, having studied it in its entirety as both a religious and historical document, I can vouch for the fact that directives contradict one another throughout. What we call modern-day Christianity starts out with pretty selective attention to which directives get obeyed and which ignored.

In my own spiritual life, I hold the moral example of Jesus in mind, and he certainly did discuss what our attitudes should be toward wealth and poverty. Many people -- ascetics, clergy, groups like the Catholic Workers -- have taken the admonition to "sell all your possessions and give to the poor" quite literally. Of course you can interpret it less strictly; but it's important that we each be accountable for our own interpretive choices, not suggest that we alone know what Jesus 'really meant' when he said something.

I'm curious about that phrase 'foundation for lifestyle'. It saddens me that sometimes, religious fundamentalists think that there is no 'foundation for lifestyle 'for people who don't belong to one of a small group of churches. As though others are morally 'winging it' or have no morals at all. That's not true. 

A person's family background, individually developed moral principles, observation of others, and life experience combine to produce sets of values that are as strong or stronger than prescribed sets that come ready-made from an organized faith. In addition, our government, community institutions, and cultural organizations foster a widely supported set of values such as compassion, honesty, respect for others, self-betterment, appreciation of the arts, respect for and care of the natural world, etc.

It is not only possible, but common, for an individual to live a life that makes a positive contribution to the community and results in continuing personal improvement without using a 'playbook' from an established church. My foundation for lifestyle is my own highly developed set of spiritual, moral, and personal values that came from a strong family, a rich, varied, and meaningful life, and study of and exposure to many cultures, ways of life, and belief systems. There are so many good ways to live. This is why I attend Friends Meeting (Quaker). I find there's no value more important in our diverse and complicated world than tolerance.

I guess no one anywhere can be 100% positive that anyone who lived far enough in the past for anyone alive today to be alive when that person was alive, lived. How do we know, for sure, that Copernicus was real? Or Aristotle? Or Machiavelli or Bach or your great, great grandfather? There's evidence, sure, but show me actual forensic evidence... Can you produce it?

Thanks for the link Michael!

What a wonderful way to enjoy some of the things that we love most!!  It is always great to have an opportunity to fellowship with other believers, and its awesome that this can take place in the context of a triathlon.

Regarding all of the "other" discussion in this thread:  I find some of the comments to be incrediblably inappropriate distortions and generalizations. 

I love the Lord.  I love to share my faith with others.  I'm not interested in offending or disrespecting anyone else.  I think most christians would make some sort of a similar statement.

I did not see anything in the link(s) that would suggest inappropriate behavior.  I hope God continues to bless all who participate in those ministries or visit at the triathlons being hosted by those folks.

Peace,
Danny 

Wow, this thread really derailed itself into God, the Universe, and Everything! I am posting only becuase I really like to see open, knowledgeable, and tolerant discussions of spirituality and faith. I hope my posts sound respectful because I mean them to be, though it's hard to get the tone across! 

the bible was written by the apostles but is accepted to be the inspired word of God. So basically, God wrote it.  

It isn't quite fair to say that this is "accepted", because it's only an accepted belief in some Christian religions. There a lots of Christians, and non-religious people as well, who consider the Bible a historical collection of documents written by humans, not the directly channeled word of God. That is not to say that they don't have import, aren't the basis of a religion, or that some of the writings contained in the Bible weren't inspired by religious insight or powerful feeling. All those things can still be true, even though it is not really universally accepted that 'God wrote' the documents. 

I recommend taking a look at this book: Don't Know Much About the Bible, by Kenneth Davis. It's a readable and interesting overview of how the Bible (or the many Bibles, I should really say, since there are hundreds of varying versions) came to be. He explains the historical context underlying many of the BIble's books, as well. What he presents in the book is a very accessible, starter version of what you might learn in a scholarly course of Biblical literature and history.

Here's a link to the Amazon page... http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0380728397/002-0612601-7240834?v=glance

Simply as a point of discussion, violent imagery such as "stand up and fight" can only result in more diatribes like dovecom's. I would have a hard time being convinced that language such as this would fall under the heading of "WWJD".

*sigh*

What was meant to inspire and motivate has now been used to divide and conquer.

Thanks for the link, Mike.  I appreciate it.

Any good tool can be used to dual purposes. Personally, I'd bet more good comes out of this than anything else. I may not be able to prove it, but that's what faith is for isn't it?