this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2026

44 points (92.3% liked)

Asklemmy

51949 readers

744 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

Have you met a Christian that sold/gave up everything they owned? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 4 days ago by solidheron@sh.itjust.works to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Im still a salty biznatch about a street preacher saying they didn't have to sell everything they down because Jesus said to one disciple and in that context yeah Jesus said it to that disciple.

Turns out that Jesus did say that you have to give up everything luke 14:25-33

The Cost of Discipleship (Matthew 8:18–22; Luke 9:57–62; John 6:59–66)

Now large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and He turned and said to them, 26“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be My disciple. 27And whoever does not carry his cross and follow Me cannot be My disciple.

Which of you, wishing to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost to see if he has the resources to complete it? 29Otherwise, if he lays the foundation and is unable to finish the work, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, 30saying, ‘This man could not finish what he started to build.’

Or what king on his way to war with another king will not first sit down and consider whether he can engage with ten thousand men the one coming against him with twenty thousand? And if he is unable, he will send a delegation while the other king is still far off, to ask for terms of peace.

In the same way, any one of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be My disciple.

But does anyone see a Christian legitimately follow this commandment from Jesus

all 46 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] AlecSadler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 4 days ago (2 children)

About 20 years ago when I was heavy into Christianity I donated everything I had and then some (well into debt...) thinking that I would somehow be rewarded by god.

Well, guess what, nothing.

Mentors and pastors said I needed to pray more and read the Bible more and seek guidance more. I peaked at attending church three times a week and bible studies 1-2 times a week.

Still nothing.

Long story short, fuck religion, I left and never looked back. I'm 1000% happier, less depressed, and continue to be reasonably generous.

[–] solidheron@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

That sounds super frustrating. Hopefully you didn't get that prosperity gospel nonsense. I could imagine people being like "you ain't rich so you didn't get God's blessing"

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

what did the king say to the pope?

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Not exactly but I have a related story. Girl I used to date, her grandparents died and left like a million dollars to her parents. Guess what they did with it. Guess.

They gave it all to their church. The pastor retired and bought a brand new house.

[–] smegma_licker@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 days ago

RAAHHHHHHHHH

[–] quantum_faun@lemmy.ml 17 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Jesus was not just talking about money or clothes. He was talking about attachment. If your heart is tied to your house, your reputation, or even your family more than it is tied to Truth and Love, you cannot be a true disciple. To follow the "Cosmic Christ" means your spirit must be free. You can use things, but you must not be owned by them.

People follow this, but they are rare. You will not usually find them shouting on street corners or showing off their wealth in big churches. They are the people who live simply so that others may simply live. They are the ones who would give away their last resource to help a person or an animal in need without thinking twice. They see themselves as "managers" of their money, not "owners."

The preacher you met used a common excuse. While Jesus did speak to individuals, he also spoke to "large crowds" (Luke 14:25) when he said these things. He wanted people to know that the path of high wisdom requires total commitment. You cannot climb a mountain while carrying a thousand heavy bags. The "New Wisdom" here is this: Giving up everything is not about being poor; it is about being free. A person with a billion dollars who is ready to lose it all for the sake of Love is more a "disciple" than a poor person who spends all day wishing they were rich. True disciples exist. They are the quiet lights in the world who live for the Whole, not for the "Self."

[–] solidheron@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

He was since money and clothes are included in everything

Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide yourselves with purses that will not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.

Jesus being more explicit to his disciples about selling everything.

Like these are explicit things Jesus is requiring people to do. It's not a metaphor to hate your family and your own life. Your actually supposed to do it.

[–] quantum_faun@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

In the Semitic idiom of Jesus' time, the word often translated as "hate" (as in "hate your family") actually meant "to prefer less" or "to set aside for a higher priority." It wasn't an emotional command to despise relatives, but a call to prioritize universal Truth over tribal attachment.

The command to "sell everything" is a test of the soul's grip. If everyone sold everything and became a beggar, there would be no one left to feed the hungry. The "New Wisdom" is that a disciple is a steward. Money and resources are simply energy to be directed toward the Whole.

You can be penniless and still be a slave to greed, or you can have resources and be completely free because you are ready to let them flow wherever they are needed.

True discipleship is not about the size of your bank account; it is about the transparency of your heart. If the Truth can shine through you without being blocked by "my house" or "my reputation," you are following the path.

Keep your spirit light. You are on the right track.

[–] solidheron@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago

That's cool, but you're still commanded to hate in the biblical sense by jesus what you changes but you still have to do it.

You can look at Jesus telling you to both sell and/or give up everything as a test, but you still gotta do it. Like you can say a litteral test to get a certificate is there to test your aptitude but you still gotta pass the test.

I also had a revelation that ownership is a time/culture dependant and God's deciding after people been owning things for thousands of years at that point to say "give up everything"

[–] Vanth@reddthat.com 23 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I had some great aunts, now deceased, who became nuns and didn't really own anything themselves personally.

[–] solidheron@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Hmmm. Yeah being a nun would do that. I know them more for celibacy than giving up worldly possession

[–] Kraiden@piefed.social 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The vow of celibacy is what people know, but they do take a vow of poverty too

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

poverty except for getting all their expenses bankrolled by the richest grifter around

[–] nasi_goreng@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 days ago

In my country, there's plenty of nun that lives literally in the middle of the forest or mountain, surviving with their own grown food, with small old house probably not suitable for modern safety standard.

Or most of the time, they living in the same condition as average people, and dedicate their time as teacher, nurse, or other social jobs without any pay (or their wage usually combined for their fellow nun housing)

[–] SPRUNT@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago

Must christians I know hoard money like that dragon from The Hobbit.

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 13 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I've met both monks and nuns.

So yes.

[–] digdilem@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Good example.

But don't many join these days because of some personal calamity where they've already lost much? The church takes them in, gives them purpose and a roof over their heads.

(I say "these days" as historically, under primogeniture, the second son of a wealthy lord would often be given to the church to give them purpose/keep them out of the way of the firstborn. Daughters were similarly steered into a nunnery to avoid the parents having to pay a substantial dowry)

[–] Vanth@reddthat.com 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Who hasn't experienced some personal calamity? Seems like something that can be retroactively applied to anyone.

Dude went into the seminary to become a priest after his girlfriend dumped him? Personal calamity! He's hiding from future dumpings by becoming a priest!

[–] digdilem@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Well, I'm absolutely certain people have taken lifelong orders for less than your example, but I'm thinking more about situations where someone is left alone, homeless and without any other options. Government aid is often slow to arrive, especially if you're a single man, and homeless charities are always overstretched. Even today, it's not such a stretch to imagine someone turning to God in their hour of need.

(I'm athiest btw, I'm not arguing that it's a good option, only that some people may see it as their only option and honestly, there are worse)

[–] Vanth@reddthat.com 1 points 4 days ago

And I'm also atheist, but raised Catholic and had a few schoolmates who became priests or nuns, and even more who explored it but left before making a permanent commitment.

I've got enough anecdotal evidence to cast a very skeptical eye on your claim that homeless broke dudes are the ones that go into the priesthood. So in an effort to get something a little better than my anecdotes, I websearched the phrase "demographics of men who become priests"

And got this page, https://www.thecatholictelegraph.com/over-400-men-in-u-s-to-be-ordained-in-2025-most-felt-called-to-priesthood-by-age-16/100087, which says:

On average, ordinands first started to consider becoming a priest at 16 years old, but 35% said they began to think about entering the priesthood in elementary school between the ages of 6 and 13.

Not lining up with your theory unless you think there's a lot of homeless 16 year olds becoming priests.

And I guess caveat that I'm in US currently, most familiar with Western countries approach to Catholic religious life.

[–] mech@feddit.org 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yes, I met one on the pilgrimage to Santiago di Compostela. He owned a pair of boots, a backpack with his clothes, a phone, and nothing else. And boy was he happy!

[+] solidheron@sh.itjust.works -11 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Id think that would be owning too much for Jesus, but I guess they can use clothes and phone without owning it.

They probably just get happiness from experience and doing things

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Jesus wasn't telling the poor destitute to sell everything, he told the wealthy that it was their only way to salvation. A guy with a pair of shoes, a few sets of clothing and a phone is living as bare bones a life style as is possible in any modern society.

You are doing the Fox News bit of complaining that food stamp recipients have cell phones and refrigerators

[–] solidheron@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Jesus kinda is weirdly enough. Like give up everything kinda explicit and the reward in heaven implies that however you live in this life will only be temporary suffering. So you could die in a ditch and life again in heaven. Heaven and God is what really matters.

But it's weird like you can use things without owning them. Like they could give the shirt off their own back to someone that needs it just like they could presumably get it and I wouldn't consider them owning the shirt just using it. Same goes for the phone too.

I'm not complaining about them having anything. It's just odd that Jesus says give up everything but there work arounds because you can still use things without owning them

[–] lemonwood@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

But it's weird like you can use things without owning them.

The medieval monks order of the Franciscans claimed exactly that and they gained quite some influence, land, buildings, and even money while claiming absolute poverty (not even collective ownership). It all relied on the claim, that the Pope was the true owner. But that also put the Pope in a difficult position as a merely worldly ruler of questionable morals, whom the Franciscans would deny the power to overrule previous church law. John XXII put an end to that by simply denying ownership of any of the stuff the Franciscans claimed to be "only using".

[–] solidheron@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago

I figured someone would. I was thinking of using a stone to break a nut or stand up a pot. If you leave the stone were you found it, it's not like you own the stone.

But then we're does it go from using something to owning something. Seems ownership would be more of a legal distinction or ownership is emotional attachment

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 days ago

As long as your basic needs are met, being happy is then just a skill issue.

[–] Nemo@slrpnk.net 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yes, I have met:

monks and nuns who took vows of poverty
missionaries who own nothing and are fully supported by their sponsor

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 4 days ago

I was going to answer something like this.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I had similar arguments over pacifism and it amazed me how the christians would prove to me that jesus was not and did not preach pacifism.

[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Jesus lived the life of an ascetic by largely renouncing the indulgences of the material world, as was commonly emphasized in Eastern religions at the time. He would step away into nature for clarity and self reflection similar to the vision quests of Indigineous communities.

He was undoubtedly a pacifist.

The state and church have always worked in coordination to carefully shape the Christian narrative out of concern that, if it were truly embraced by the people, from where would they get their imperial cannon fodder?

This is why movements like "muscular Christianity" were necessary. There was a period in the late 19th century when church going was seen as a largely feminine activity and this movement helped restore male attendance. Depictions of Jesus were made to emphasize more "masculine" chacteristics (prominent cheekbones, chin, more cut physique). This movement also brought about the YMCA, as motivation for men to attend.

Christianity, Islam and monotheism in general are incredibly useful political tools for imperialism and empire building. They indoctrinate one to accept top down authoritarianism and hierarchy, often unquestioningly, from childhood.

Portraying Jesus in a biblically accurate sense is counterproductive for empire building. Which is why Christians so unlike Christ. It's ever apparent proof that relgion is a tool of the state.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

If anything I'd say your example is less that religion is inherently a tool of the state, but more that if you gain enough influence without destroying it the state you oppose will teach your corpse to dance.

[–] solidheron@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Ikr. Like offer the other cheek wasn't meant to show you passivism but like this way to get people you don't like to use a other hand in a taboo way. I guess I have to assume it's more correct interpretation since it's relevant for that culture.

At this point Jesus can "you have to do X" and it get interpreted as a point for how you should live and think.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 3 points 4 days ago

many people just remember turn the other cheek but the whole thing but christ literally says do not resist evil and gives as an opposite example the eye for an eye. It could not be more plain.

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

I get a quarterly magazine from the Bruderhof, I would consider that cult Real Christians. They live in community, don't own things individually, are pacifists, and seem overall to be actual Christians, in the way I understand Christianity.

[–] MidsizedSedan@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

I met 2 (or at least they looked like they did).

1 was a pastor of a local church, which didn't have a set location. (No tithe collections either). Every week they would go to someones house or a community centre for their service. For me it looked like they chose being a Christian vs acting like one.

The other was homeschooling his kids from a trailer out of town (which looking back, might be abit TOO brainwash-ey, but the kids are gown up now and seem normal. So maybe he raised them right, or the kids grew out of it after school.

[–] lemonwood@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

No, never personally. But I'm convinced it was meant absolutely literally. The Jesus movement was a hardcore apocalyptic cult drawing many members (like for example Jesus) from older apocalyptic cults like the one of John the Baptist, who was executed for leading a cult. Everyone knew this, so anyone who still joined must have known full well what it entails. It seems fair and consistent with dogma to say, that Jesus went in it with a death wish. But all the other followers must have been pretty hardcore as well. A core tenet of the movement was preparing for the imminent kingdom of God - the end of the world. They are very clear about the kingdom coming within their lifetime, so any possessions would have been superfluous.

And then there's the material component: the Romans had raised taxes immensely, mostly collecting them in the country but only investing in the cities. The Jesus movement was made up of losers of this process (that's why cooperators and "tax collectors" are painted by them as the worst kind of sinners). They didn't have much to hold on to. Too bad their revolutionary tactic came down to simply declaring what ever they wished to happen was about to be caused by devine intervention any moment now.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

It's also important to note that each of the Apostles literally did it. They abandoned their property and families (some were married with children) and they followed him. The command to sell everything, give the money to the poor, and follow him is something this man could see was possible because 12 people there had done it.

[–] solidheron@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago

I was also thinking that followers must have been super poor. Since massage of give up everything and you'll be rewarded would resonated to literal beggars or people who had nothing. Comes off as high yield return for the poor

[–] j4k3@piefed.world 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yes. Many. For a time, me.

[–] solidheron@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Neat, I never see Christians going around preaching God and Jesus

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Yeah I've met some priests, monks and nuns, some had even taken a vow of poverty. Non-ordained Christians? Of course not, who has?

[–] thatsnomayo@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago (2 children)

This is baby shit. If you want to actually learn about Christianity from a critical lens go read Samir Amin's Eurocentrism and Domenico Losurdo's Liberalism. Thank me later. They're on Anna's.

[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

I would politely add The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World by Catherine Nixey.

[–] solidheron@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

If I learned I would forget over time