I know, the prevailing thought is that heaven is where believers are going to and its a bunch of fluffy clouds, etc.

However, if we go to revelations, we see that Jesus descends to earth and establishes His kingdom on earth and that there is a 'first resurrection'/rapture at that time. Those individuals who have part in the first resurrection will not have to face judgment at the second resurrection, and also reign with Christ during the interval between the first and second resurrection (1 millennium). Apparently, this is where the level of reward is determined - rule over x cities or whatever.

It seems likely that the dead in Christ are not in heaven either, rather they are in Sheol/Hades/Hell (the nice part) awaiting the first resurrection. The rest of the dead will be judged by their deeds at the end of the millennial reign.

BTW - I'm not sure where the idea that demons reign over the pit came from. They are there, but imprisoned, with no power.

I see what you're saying, 50% from a 100k/year earner vs. 50% from a 50k/year earner leaves the richer one more $$ to use for taking care of himself and his family.

In a way, i would still say that its fair to just go by percent, since those who give up more in absolute terms ARE doing more good than those who give up less (even if the percentages are equal). Of course, being a showboat about it is not acceptable either way, or rather it leads to no reward, since the esteem of a person's contemporaries would be that reward already fully paid.

You make a good point. But how could you get them to stop worshiping you? Maybe instead of making their tiny toy world perfect, you could throw in some tiny toy tornadoes, and tiny toy AIDS, and tiny toy famine, so that at least a sizable portion of them will spend a sizable portion of their tiny toy lives toiling away against adversity instead of steadfast worship, and some of them may even doubt you exist at all!

Praise the lord, you just converted me!

AirshipOhio -

How would you order this fivesome from the Kaufman oeuvre: Synecdoche, New York; Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; Adaptation; Human Nature; Being John Malkovich? I go with...

1a. Synecdoche
1b. Adaptation
2. Being John Malkovich
3. Human Nature
4. Eternal Sunshine

One of the consistent messages of the New Testament is that it is best, for those who find themselves able to do it, to sell all they have and follow Christ. Likewise, celibacy is recommended by the Lord for those who find they can do it. The Church has traditionally interpreted these sayings of our Lord (and of St. Paul) to be offering an invitation to a superior state of life, rather than stating an absolute obligation for salvation. Those who can imitate Christ (who owned nothing, lived celibately, and spread His gospel) in such a radical way should do so.

There are still many people who do give up or sell everything, including married life, in order to enter Catholic religious orders, to become monks, nuns, friars, etc. Each religious order has its own character and special way of following Christ; some are devoted principally to teaching, others to service to the needy, and others are devoted primarily to prayer itself.

How would you order this fivesome of movies I like: Millions, Buffalo '66, District 9, Catch 22, Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels?

What about this fivesome of other movies I like: Santa Sangre, The Cable Guy, Glengarry Glen Ross, Falling Down, Bottle Rocket?

In terms of greatness, I rank the first group:
1. Millions
2. Buffalo '66
3. Catch 22
4. District 9
5. Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels

But in terms of how well I like them, I rank the first group:
1. Buffalo '66
2. Catch 22
3. Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels
4.* District 9
5. Millions

And I rank the second group, only by how well I like them, since they have no numbers in their titles:
1a. Santa Sangre
1b. Bottle Rocket
2a. Glengarry Glen Ross
2b. Falling Down
5. The Cable Guy

* It is too soon to know for sure if this is where it will end up after it has finished settling.

Also, concerning Luke 18:18-27 and Matthew 19:16-26, some important details have been left out that contribute to the traditional Catholic interpretation of these passages.

In both accounts, Christ first answers the question "what must I do to be saved?" with the answer "keep the commandments." In Matthew's account, Christ says (Matt 19:21) "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me." The emphasis is on perfection or completion, rather than on just what is necessary in order to be saved.

In both accounts, after Christ says it is very difficult for a rich person to be saved, the disciples are troubled. Christ responds by saying that "with God all things are possible." The claim isn't that it's impossible to be saved without giving away everything and imitating and following Christ in such a radical way, but it is much more difficult.

Sort of self-assessment personal sacrifice? I can see the appeal of the idea. 'Finding that they can' is pretty 'grey' though - is the idea to give absolutely everything that you 'can'?

I suppose I did overlook somehat the religious orders, really I was thinking about the laity. I'd be surprised, though, if the figures for people joining those groups weren't skewed pretty heavily in favour of young, idealist Christians; I doubt that very many people just 'drop everything' and become a monk (though no doubt some do).

In the context of the OP, the only orders relevant would be the ones teaching and servicing the needy - 'dedication to prayer' would fall under 'navel-gazing', obviously. The teaching is... problematic - as viewed 'from the outside', literacy at the price of indoctrination is a mixed blessing, and where ideology is allowed to taint the altruistic acts (as in Mother Theresa) there can be similar question marks over organised devotion to the needy.

On the whole, though, I'd see those who take orders of any kind as exceptional to the thrust of the OP. I'm more concerned with what I see as a sea-change in the mentality of the majority 'on the ground'.

The idea is something like this: the higher and more perfect state of life is also a higher place from which to fall. To those whom much is given, much is expected, etc. It is for this reason that an ancient Christian expression asserts that "the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."

There are many who practically cannot live in chastity, poverty, or obedience. They would find such a state so difficult that it could ultimately work against, rather than for, their salvation. This is particularly true concerning chastity. Those who can't live in perfect chastity should get married.

Well, once upon a time, it was rather unusual that a Catholic family with several children wouldn't have at least one child enter religion or the seminary, at least to try it out. This was true even a couple of generations ago. Almost all my aunts and uncles were in convents, monasteries, or seminaries at some point. Throughout the history of the Church, it was much more common for many people to give up everything and enter religious life.

Even today, I know a lot of members of religious orders, many of whom left careers in their 30's to become monks, friars, and nuns.

Sure, I can see how, from the outside, prayer doesn't seem to be a form of service. Traditional Catholic teaching lists the works of mercy that one can perform in service of one's neighbor in fulfillment of the second great commandment of our Lord (which, coincidentally, was the Gospel at this morning's Mass). A list of the works of mercy can be found here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10198d.htm

Like I say, once upon a time religious made up a much larger percentage of Catholics and of the population in general in Catholic countries. While it wasn't the case that lay Catholics did nothing independently (and everyone is called to perform the works of mercy), they often served others mostly by providing necessary support to the religious orders.

You said that your knowledge of Christianity is somewhat limited, and you mentioned the passages where our Lord spoke of selling everything and following Him. You expressed some confusion about how that matches up with Christian practice. I was explaining that these sayings of our Lord are the historical origin of the Catholic religious orders, insofar as our Lord wasn't stating an obligation for everyone, but a more perfect way of life open to those who can handle it. But what is first and most important is salvation, and in the same passages our Lord promises that God can and will save even the rich.