The Philosophy of the Rich Young Ruler
Originally published January 25, 2017
“…he went away sorrowful…”
“And, behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’ And [Jesus] said unto him, ‘Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God…’” ~ Matthew 19:16-17
To say that something is “good” is to refer to its intrinsic value or worth. When God said in proclaiming His creation “good” was that it had value, and not just value to Him, but value in and of itself.
That doesn’t mean that something that is “good” cannot be used for evil intent, and even if it is used for evil, that doesn’t change its intrinsic goodness.
Now contrast this with every philosophy, from Plato to Immanuel Kant, where the chief aim is the destruction of man. Such a philosophy was held by Philo who had a great influence on the Pharisees and Jewish religion, incorporating it into Jewish orthodoxy.
Given this understanding it is easy to see why Jesus would say what He said to the rich young ruler, who would have been a student of this philosophy under the Jewish orthodoxy of that time. Jesus was not making a definitive existential statement about man. He was sardonically pointing out the rational inconsistency of the rich young ruler in calling Jesus “good master” when his own philosophy taught that man is not good.
Nevertheless, unregenerate man is not under condemnation because he has somehow lost his value in being “good.” He is condemned because he is under law. The reality that God made a way for man to be reconciled to Himself is evidence of God recognizing man’s continued “goodness”, his value. That man in the weakness of flesh from time to time may break the law is not somehow indicative of his lack of “goodness”. This is why the Bible states that righteousness is apart from the law. Any attempt to define righteousness by some standard of law-keeping (even if Jesus “keeps the law for us”) is placing man right back under the very same law that can only condemn. The only way for man to escape condemnation is for him to get out from under the law.
This is exactly what the new birth accomplishes. It makes man a truly righteous being who is the literal offspring of God the Father, and one who is no longer condemned by the law because he his a new creature that is not made under the law. The old man who was under the law is dead, and you can’t condemn a dead man. This is the very reason why the apostle John can state unequivocally and without contradiction:
“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” ~ 1 John 3:9
~ Andy
The Philosophy of the Rich Young Ruler
“And, behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’ And [Jesus] said unto him, ‘Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God…’” ~ Matthew 19:16-17
To say that something is “good” is to refer to its intrinsic value or worth. When God said in proclaiming His creation “good” was that it had value, and not just value to Him, but value in and of itself.
That doesn’t mean that something that is “good” cannot be used for evil intent, and even if it is used for evil, that doesn’t change its intrinsic goodness.
Now contrast this with every philosophy, from Plato to Immanuel Kant, where the chief aim is the destruction of man. Such a philosophy was held by Philo who had a great influence on the Pharisees and Jewish religion, incorporating it into Jewish orthodoxy.
Given this understanding it is easy to see why Jesus would say what He said to the rich young ruler, who would have been a student of this philosophy under the Jewish orthodoxy of that time. Jesus was not making a definitive existential statement about man. He was sardonically pointing out the rational inconsistency of the rich young ruler in calling Jesus “good master” when his own philosophy taught that man is not good.
Nevertheless, unregenerate man is not under condemnation because he has somehow lost his value in being “good.” He is condemned because he is under law. The reality that God made a way for man to be reconciled to Himself is evidence of God recognizing man’s continued “goodness”, his value. That man in the weakness of flesh from time to time may break the law is not somehow indicative of his lack of “goodness”. This is why the Bible states that righteousness is apart from the law. Any attempt to define righteousness by some standard of law-keeping (even if Jesus “keeps the law for us”) is placing man right back under the very same law that can only condemn. The only way for man to escape condemnation is for him to get out from under the law.
This is exactly what the new birth accomplishes. It makes man a truly righteous being who is the literal offspring of God the Father, and one who is no longer condemned by the law because he his a new creature that is not made under the law. The old man who was under the law is dead, and you can’t condemn a dead man. This is the very reason why the apostle John can state unequivocally and without contradiction:
“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” ~ 1 John 3:9
~ Andy
Logically Speaking, Abortion is the Oldest Religion on Earth
In a discussion of abortion, let’s set aside Christianity for a moment. Let’s set aside the Ten Commandments. Instead, let’s look at abortion from the viewpoint of logic and philosophy. Don’t worry, God is logical. Don’t worry, God was not on vacation when philosophy was discovered.
Let’s concede, for the sake of argument, that conception is not life. Let’s start with something that no one can deny: conception is the possibility of life. Let’s also add another point that no one can deny: only time can reveal what that life will be. Let’s also add the irrefutable fact that lives result in human milestones for humanity. That would seem fairly evident. Let’s also add the irrefutable fact that because of human conscience, those milestones have been for the better, and not worse.
And let’s add the irrefutable fact that one life leads to many other lives that also have a potential to contribute to humanity—a contribution that only time can reveal.
So what is abortion saying? It is saying that the possibility of life is completely irrelevant because life is irrelevant. Whether a legacy of one life and the lives it spawns contributes to humanity or not is irrelevant because life is irrelevant.
Now we are back to religion. In its most ancient form, religion disdains the material and longs for the invisible. If you can see it, hear it, touch it, feel it, or smell it, it is evil. And that, of course, includes life. Dualism is the foundation of most religions—if not all of them. Christ destroyed the whole notion when He arrived as Deity in human flesh.
Abortion is not a social issue, it is ancient religion. Logically, it rejects the value of life and deems its sum as zero. It is also misguided to think those who partake in abortion services only value their own life; no, because their life is without value, whatever happens in life stays in life, one day we will be free from its bondage to some invisible freedom of one’s own imagination. Decisions made in this life are as irrelevant as life itself.
Logically, abortion can only mean one thing: life in its totality is worthless. While arguing about when life begins, abortion wants to snuff out the very possibility of life itself.
It’s not a complicated social issue, it’s the oldest religion known to man.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
3 comments