Wow. And thanks for posting that. It's refreshing to see because most of the news coverage of Christianity I come across tends to involve Christians who want to use the political process to impose their personal moral views on others.

I'm a non-believer, but I very much respect the fact that deeply held religious beliefs help many people in their personal lives and also move them to actions which benefit the community. So, it makes me unhappy when the former sorts of Christians who want to use the political process as described above benefit from the actions and good will generated by the latter sorts of Christians. Obviously there is some overlap, but it's nice to see news reports that demonstrate that the "political" Christians don't necessarily speak for the "spiritual" Christians.

While the Pastor's emphasis of the Gospel is exceptional, to the point of thrilling NYT and loosing 1,000 parishioners, I still wonder how he can place abortion in the same category (later in the interview quoted here) as homosexual practice and the exposure of Ms Jackson's breast. I agree completely that churches should steer clear of allowing anyone other than a deacon or pastor to speak from the pulpit, and we should bring the Gospel to the world, without the taint of politics. But this does not mean that we cannot bring the Word to the world in a message that the world understands - Let's face it, megachurches (including his own) have capitalized on this, from the megatron with the bouncing ball to parking trollies (Willow Creek) to the absence of any religious symbols (Willow Creek has no cross in any public area). Unfortunately, those issues that are most decisive between Christianity and world today are sexual sins - just as they were 2,000 years ago (Rm 1:20-28). But abortion as a sexual sin? Sex might have got us to the child, but won't answer the question of life or death.

Unfortunately, those issues that are most decisive between Christianity and world today are sexual sins - just as they were 2,000 years ago (Rm 1:20-28).

What about the many passages where Jesus commands his followers to live lives of poverty and simplicity? It has always struck me as suspicious that Jesus, who lived in a not especially wealthy part of the empire, preached poverty. But Paul, who traveled through Greece and Rome, did not reproach these wealthier aries for their riches. Instead he went after their sexual sins. It's a bit too convenient, if you ask me, and I can't help but think that Jesus would have been more outraged by Roman material luxury than by Roman sexual mores (not that the latter would have appealed to him, but still...).

Jason,

Would you care to elaborate on what you mean that Jesus "preached poverty"? He taught against greed and exploitation of the poor, certainly, but I'm not aware of where He taught that having wealth was, in and of itself, a bad thing. (The account of the rich man who was asked to give up everything demonstrates the need to place our faith in God, not riches.) Likewise, Jesus' teachings on sexual morality were pretty stringent--if you lust after a person you're not married to, you have committed adultery.

Furthermore, Paul did have a few things to say to the Corinthians about treating the rich and the poor equally.

"I'm not aware of where He taught that having wealth was, in and of itself, a bad thing."

Eric, didn't Jesus say something about it being harder for a rich man to pass throught the gates of heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? Maybe I'm mixing up my parables here . . .

Yes, Phil. It is the account of the rich young man, as I mentioned earlier. The orthodox interpretation of this teaching, however, is that it is harder for the rich and powerful to be saved because they tend to rely on their wealth and power, not on God. There is nothing inherently unrighteous about having wealth (or we'd all be in trouble--virtually all Americans are wealthier today than the wealthy in Jesus' day)

Jesus taught generosity, but not asceticism.

There are plenty of Christians who would disagree with that last sentence of yours, Eric. I'm thinking in particular of Saint Francis, who took Jesus quite literally about giving all that you have to the poor.

Not that I subscribe to this moral code -- I reject it -- but I do think that a life of poverty is what Jesus really wanted for his followers.

Jason,

I disagree that Jesus wanted poverty for all his followers. Jesus was highly educated and possessed of common sense. As such, he knew that economic development is necessary. There used to be a saying about the old Soviet Union that health care in the nation was very "just" because all were equally without it. An exaggeration of course, but with some truth.

I think Jesus expects that some will give all to the poor as their means of obedience to his call to radical discipleship. Nevertheless, Jesus was not warning of the evil of material goods per se but of the terrible trap they can become and how the possessor can allow them to become a barrier between themselves and God. Jesus warned of quite a few traps or obstacles that have nothing to do with money.

Christianity is often subjects to extremes and thus we have those who deplore wealthy per se and those who connect the acquiring of wealth directly to God's favor.

In Jesus' day, some equated the amount of material goods to the amount of blessing from God (consider today's proponents of the prosperity gospel). It would seem that Jesus wanted to emphasize that blessing is a component of grace, which is bestowed and not earned.

That said, I have no doubt Christ would be disappointed at the relative shallowness of discipleship of the majority of his modern followers. However, discipleship comes in many forms. Some may feel called to a life of poverty, others to use their wealth for the benefit of others.

Methodist leader John Wesley is known for his saying, "earn all you can, save all you can, give all you can." He made a lot and gave most of it away. He lived a simple life, but not one of poverty, either.

"Jesus was highly educated and possessed of common sense. As such, he knew that economic development is necessary." Methinks you are rather drastically back-projecting contemporary economic knowledge a couple of millenia....

I don't believe the point of the rich young ruler was that you can get to heaven by giving up all you own. The rich young ruler thought he was doing everything right, and Jesus was showing him that he wasn't. No one perfectly keeps the commmandments that he claimed he did. Getting to heaven is not as simple as just giving away all your wealth. Zacchaeus only gave up half his possessions to the poor and would repay anyone he cheated 4 times over, and Jesus said salvation had come to his house.

"Methinks you are rather drastically back-projecting contemporary economic knowledge a couple of millenia...."

You're the one doing the projecting, philosopher. I'm not sure whether you're implying that because Jesus lived 2000 years ago, He couldn't possibly know what is known today, or whether you're just uncomfortable with the presentation of evidence that you misunderstand what Jesus actually said.

philosopher,

While economic sytems may have become more complicated, the basic system of "supply and demand" was operative then. Jesus obviously observed wealth and poverty and I expect that he saw both opportunities and dangers in the economic system of the day.

The fact that I of modest income may indeed have greater possessions (excepting for land, perhaps)in many ways than a "rich ruler" of Christ's day doesn't change the basic concept of "rich" and "poor."

I think Jesus would likely have problems with "extravagant" living, but such must be seen in context, which means some degree of discussion of the difference for today between living well and living to excess.

" the basic system of "supply and demand" was operative then". Er, so was quantum physics, plate tectonics, universal generative grammar, the circulation of the blood, and the law of effect. But no one _knew_ about any of those things back then. There were markets, and I'm sure lots of people had a rudimentary and non-theoretic understanding of how local markets work. And there was no such thing as _developmental_ economics in that day, and indeed I doubt that there was any such thing until the 18th century at the earliest.

I have no idea why you think that Jesus' being "highly educated" means that he'd have even the slightest clue about economics -- being well-educated in his society meant a mastery of biblical scholarship. It's not like he sat in on Econ 1 lectures at Sanhedrin U. in between keggers at the ol' Alpha Omega frat house! ;-)

If Jesus had no idea about economics, then he couldn't have had any notion of justice for the poor. He had to have known about economic exploitation in order to be able to denounce it.

Similarly, more complex theories of "just war" or whatever had not been put forth in Christ's time, but that doesn't mean that Jesus was ignorant about the evils of war.

Joel, you're right, but you're wasting your time. Philospher isn't interested in honest debate; his mind is made up, and he isn't interested in any facts that affect his opinion.

That should have been "contradict" his opinion.

"If Jesus had no idea about economics, then he couldn't have had any notion of justice for the poor. He had to have known about economic exploitation in order to be able to denounce it."

This is running together several different things that really ought not be run together. One is Jesus' obvious sympathy for the plight of the poor. Does one need to know anything about economics to have that? I don't see why. It's like saying that you need to know physics to throw a baseball, or linguistics in order to speak your native language.

The question of economic _exploitation_, on the other hand, perhaps requires a bit more sophisticated economic sensibility. But I don't see anything in the Bible that has anything to do with exploitation per se. Sympathy for the poor is not the same thing as a progressive labor policy, after all! So I don't think it makes much sense to use terms like "exploitation" (or, things like "alienation of labor", etc.) in discussing the explicit teachings in the Gospel. They just weren't ideas that were there yet.

philosopher,

Nothing in the Bible about exploitation per se? I guess that depends on what the word exploitation means.

Consider Amos 2:6-7.

"This is what the Lord says, 'For three sins of Israel, even for four, I will not turn back my wrath. They sell the righteous for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed.'"

When poverty is caused by exploitation or oppression, the Bible doesn't simply express sympathy or charity for the poor but condemns the exploiters or oppressors. In this instance, exploitation is so wide-spread and tolerated that the whole of Israel is judged.

I completely agree with your interpretation with regards to oppression, and the importance of social justice in the Bible more generally. But that's not what we're arguing about. We were arguing about your earlier claim that Jesus, as a well-educated man of the 1st century, would have a decent knowledge of developmental economics.

For oppression is not the same as exploitation -- the latter is a much more sophisticated concept, and requires being able to think in terms of economic _systems_ and how they are organized. Arguing sensibly in terms of exploitation requires a modicum of background in economics (though not necessarily a very accurate one, as we see in Marx's writings!). Arguing about oppression, not so.

philospher,

I neither wrote nor implied that Jesus knew of developmental economics. I wrote that he had an understanding of the basics of supply and demand.

Most theologians use the terms "exploitation" and "oppression" interchangably insofar as I gather from my own readings.

"But I don't see anything in the Bible that has anything to do with exploitation per se."

Jesus understood more about economics and exploitation and oppression than you will ever know. What do you think the Romans did to the Jewish people under their rule?

Part of the problem is your lack of understanding of the point of Jesus' teachings and the rest of the Bible (which are consistent). Read the Sermon on the Mount as just one example - "you have heard it said....but I say to you...". He not only knew and understood, He specifically phrased His remarks in contradistinction to what people expected. Read the Gospels - particularly the Gospel of Luke - and what is recorded about Jesus' teachings, parables, etc.

His purpose was to offer the Jews the opportunity to acknowledge Him as their Messiah (knowing they would reject Him), and then to offer Himself as a sacrifice for sin to pay for the sins of the world. His mission was to reconcile people to the Father. Whatever economic wealth people might accumulate on earth will decay - they can't take it with them when they die.

Joel, just look upthread. "Jesus was highly educated and possessed of common sense. As such, he knew that economic development is necessary." That's what you said. I suspect that you're just not being very careful with your words here. If you're right about theologians, then they aren't as careful with their words as I would like, but different groups do use the same words in different ways. But I do think that both philosophers and social scientists use "exploitation" and "oppression" to pick out somewhat distinct notions (though of course many forms of wrongdoing are both at once).

Now, you did _also_ say something about supply and demand, which, as a separate concern, I don't see as highly likely if we mean anything more sophisticated than "things that people want but are hard to get will be more expensive than things that people don't want or are easy to get." , And, more importantly, I don't see how such knowledge is as at all necessary for making the basic point about Jesus' concern for the poor.

Tanzanite- The Birthstone of December
Tanzanite History

Tanzanite the jewel of East Africa is a rare and exotic variety of gemstone. Tanzanite occurs in a variety of colors. The most widely recognized color of tanzanite, in the jewelry industry is purple. In smaller sizes, it tends to the lighter shades, with lavender the most common. In larger sizes the gem typically displays darker and richer tones of purple.

Since tanzanite is a much recent find, it is popularly known as the gemstone of the 20th century. According to The Tanzanite Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting tanzanite and those associated with its mining, tanzanite gemstone is a 1000 times rarer than diamonds. The obvious reason is its limited source which is getting depleted. This generation has the privilege to be the first time owners of a tanzanite gemstone.

In the year 2002 this exceptional gemstone was added to the American Gem Trade Association’s list of birthstones. Tanzanite is the birthstone for the month of December.

When tanzanite is mined, it is almost always grayish or brownish in color. Very rarely rough crystal will come out purple or blue, but for those that don't, heat treatment is used to get the lovely color. This treatment brings out the beautiful blues and purples tanzanite is so celebrated for. The treatment is permanent and an accepted norm in the jewelry industry. The treatment does not affect the price of the gemstone.

A calcium aluminum silicate Ca2Al3(O/OH/SiO4/Si2O7) by chemical composition, tanzanite belongs to the zoisite mineral family. It has a hardness of 6.5-7 on the Mohs scale which is not particularly hard as compared to other gemstones.

Tanzanite is usually worn as pendant, necklace or earrings. When set in rings, the gemstone is very often bezel set to protect the gem. Tanzanite looks great with diamonds or white sapphires as the brilliance of these stones complements the deep luster of tanzanite and provides tenacity to the setting. It is recommended for the married couples celebrating their twenty fourth wedding anniversary.

Avoid cleaning tanzanite with hot soapy water or steam and never clean it in an ultrasonic cleaner. Never use harsh detergents and or any cleaning solutions that contain petroleum distillates. Avoid soaking your gemstone in water for long and only use something like an old soft toothbrush (without toothpaste). A warm moist cloth may also be used to clean tanzanite jewelry.
Rare and unique, this extraordinary gemstone has created a special place of respect in the world of colored gemstones. The lovely color of the gemstone is a fine cusp between deep violet and royal blue with a velvety shine.

Author is a webmaster of
http://www.angara.com
Triloki Singh

k/w : Tanzanite, Tanzanite Jewelry, Tanzanite Earrings, Tanzanite Pendants

http://www.angara.com/tanzanite.do

Choose from the exquisite Angara collection of fine tanzanite jewelry including tanzanite rings, tanzanite pendants and tanzanite earrings in elegant designs and styles. Buy loose tanzanite gemstones using our simplified search and design your own tanzanite jewelry, ring, pendant, earring and studs in quick.