The Story of the Rich Young Ruler - Are We Hypocrites?

[Drew]

We all know that within the context of Christian "culture", certain things are viewed as clear violation of God's principles (sin, in short) - divorce (for incompatibility reasons alone), pornography, and even profanity (just to pick 3). If a brother or sister strays in such areas, we rapidly rebuke. If the person seems bent on indulging in such behaviours, we can come down on them pretty heavily, ultimately perhaps to the point of shunning them altogether or even questioning their salvation - the familiar "if you persist in sin, there remains no sacrifice...." argument.

I just read the parable of the rich young ruler. For those unfamiliar with it, please consider reading Luke 18:18-23. In order to be consistent, should we Christians not be giving a lot more of our stuff and $$ away? After all, a lot of us have TVs, nice cars, a nice big house, go on vacations, etc. I think one would be hard pressed to argue that these are necessities. And yet we also know that there is a huge need. Yet I see very little evidence of this serious level of giving going on in the church (and I am no exception).

Are we being hypocrites by chastising those who commit sins like those I have mentioned while all the while not really living up to what seems like a pretty clear mandate to be generous?

Now people will try to dance around this by saying we only need to give up our TV / car / vacations if they have a kind of unhealthy hold on us. Or that we are only asked to give 10 %. I think, to be brutally honest with ourselves, this is a little "trick" to rationalize holding on to our stuff-we simply convince ourselves that it does not have a hold on us, so its OK.

But we know that there are those who need the basics of life (if not here, then in countries ravished by poverty), we know that children are dying of cancers that might otherwise be saved if we all truned our plasma TVs and trips to DisneyWorld into research dollars. In other words, I think we cannot argue that there is no real need.

So are we Christians not engaged in "group hypocricy" by effectively affirming the acceptability of holding on to anything more than the bare essentials of life? Are we playing games with ourselves? I want to be clear, I direct this question to myself as much as to others.

 

[Quath]

I am not a Christian, but I agree with you. I am guilty of this. I went on a Disney trip and spent thousands. I could have sent that money to save someone's life easily.

I think our selfishness is at odds with our compassion. We want to help, but we also want to enjoy life. We want to give a lot, but we don't want to be almost broke while the people down the street keep their wealth and have a lot more fun.

I would like to see how other see this issue as well.

Quath

 

[destiny]

I live in an area where theres a mega church on every corner, and if the corner doesn't have a church on it, theres a sign that says, "future home of such and such church".
These buildings are huge and extravagant!
So whos footing the bill for these buildings? My guess would be the "tithers".
I believe that the Holy Spirit is the one who designates where we give, at least thats the case in our family.
We don't live extravigantly and we aren't materialistic, although we aren't in need either.
I have an aunt who lives close by who is a widow and is low income, we have people in our community who are in need....This is our mission feild.
I'm not going to pay our money in to build another big building and pay another big salary when theres people OUTSIDE who are in need.
Most churches are full of wealthy people at the exclusion of the poor because thats the standard being set.
I'd much rather be in the real world trying to do what Jesus did.
We arent to hoard up for ourselfs, out of our abundance we are to give so others will have their needs met too.
I don't want to be rich or poor, I just want to be able to have my needs met and be able to meet someone elses needs along the way. Personally, it's really fun and fulfilling to give something to somebody who really needs it.
You miss out on that when you pay your income into a big building.
God has already taught me that the more I hold on to, the less i'll have to hold.
We actually have more money and are better able to make our ends meet when we give it away.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Great post Drew.

I find it telling that there have been almost no responses from christians to this post in about a day (kudos for destiny for stepping up to the plate).

Jesus is fairly explicit here, and too an extent I do feel there is a bit of hypocrisy here from christians in this regard. When I was a christian, in all honesty, this was one of the verses I had the biggest issues with. Jesus seems rather explicit here, particularly give that this young man DID keep the commandments (something many here say is impossible).

Perhaps because I was raised rather poor, and pulled myself up to a large extent by my own bootstraps, but I like the fact that I do well for myself. I do give to charity, and I could give more. However, perhaps it's the darwinist in me, I know why I have been sucessful and wish to continue to do the same.

My one issue I'll take up with destiny is that he put it in the context of church buildings, of which of course I certainly agree. However, the instructions of Jesus seem much more broad than that. He certainly seems to say that IF you have any ability whatsoever to give up wealth for others, you should. I disagree with this statement, but I am curious how Christians can juxtapose the same with what Jesus explicitly stated.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Are we being hypocrites by chastising those who commit sins like those I have mentioned while all the while not really living up to what seems like a pretty clear mandate to be generous?

YES, YES, YES. You are correct!

Please see some of my other threads.....

Big Churches = Starving Children

Amazon outreach through Soma Sight

And others I have put up on this topic.

I wish some people on this board would have at least considered e mailing the family I am supporting in the Amazon in my "Amazon outreach through Soma Sight" thread.

I had asked for small donations but all you get is "I am already helping elsewhere".

Yes this country is rich and its time to e - bay your needless possesions for the poor!

 

[ThinkerMan]

Are we being hypocrites by chastising those who commit sins like those I have mentioned while all the while not really living up to what seems like a pretty clear mandate to be generous?

YES, YES, YES. You are correct!

Please see some of my other threads.....

Big Churches = Starving Children

Amazon outreach through Soma Sight

And others I have put up on this topic.

I wish some people on this board would have at least considered e mailing the family I am supporting in the Amazon in my "Amazon outreach through Soma Sight" thread.

I had asked for small donations but all you get is "I am already helping elsewhere".

Yes this country is rich and its time to e - bay your needless possesions for the poor!

Soma...I may be way out of line here...and certainly don't have all the facts...but didn't you just say on another thread that you going to buy a summer home in Alaska?

I don't mean to "call you out", but it seems to dovetail nicely into this thread.

If I have somehow miscontrued your other post I apologize in advance...if not I appreciate your thoughts on how this pertains to your praising of the above quote.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Soma...I may be way out of line here...and certainly don't have all the facts...but didn't you just say on another thread that you going to buy a summer home in Alaska?

No I am not buying a home.

I am investing in some land in AK so I can get *EDITED* out of California and build myself a log cabin from surrounding woodlands for ultra cheap. I have a background in contracting thanks to my dad and could probably build a small cabin for under 5,000 dollars.

No tv, no radio, no distractions.

I might end up fishing in the summer off Homer or a more dangerous expedition in the Berring Strait and giving the bulk of my income to needy families that I know of.

One thing is for sure, living in Southern California is way too expensive and is devoid of the spiritual qualities that could be found in a more secluded area in nature.

 

[Quath]

So is it better to stay in California and send money to starving families or to move to a place that makes you happier?

Quath

 

[ThinkerMan]

Soma...I may be way out of line here...and certainly don't have all the facts...but didn't you just say on another thread that you going to buy a summer home in Alaska?

No I am not buying a home.

I am investing in some land in AK so I can get the hell out of California and build myself a log cabin from surrounding woodlands for ultra cheap. I have a background in contracting thanks to my dad and could probably build a small cabin for under 5,000 dollars.

No tv, no radio, no distractions.

I might end up fishing in the summer off Homer or a more dangerous expedition in the Berring Strait and giving the bulk of my income to needy families that I know of.

One thing is for sure, living in Southern California is way too expensive and is devoid of the spiritual qualities that could be found in a more secluded area in nature.

Sounds pretty cool. While sometimes I yearn for the same type of removal, I'm afraid I am much to metropolitan to do so (and my wife is even moreso...haha).

I didn't know you are from So Cal...so am I originally. Though I have moved north now and reside in our capitol city. But I do miss the beach!

Thanks for your response....although, as I said, I don't necessarily hold the same ideals, I can say that it sounds like you are not living hypocritical...tough I can't wait to hear your thoughts after your future wife spends a year in an Alaskan cabin...haha.

Your thoughts sound a lot like Thoreau's Walden Pond...great read.

 

[bibleberean]

I have met many Christians who have "packed their bags and went on a guilt trip" because they have many possessions.

I have also met and talked to many Christians that have "bleeding hearts" and want every one to feel guilty for having material possessions while people around the world are starving.

The parable of the "rich young ruler" is often misused to badger Christians into feeling guilty and defensive about owning anything at all.

First of all Jesus was addressing this man specifically. Jesus did not command the young man to give up all that he had and follow Him he told them that in order to be perfect he needed to give up all that he had in order to lay up riches in heaven.

In Matthew 19 we are given more information.

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Jesus had already told the rich man what he needed to do to have eternal life.

Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

Luke 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Jesus was physically on the earth and talking specifically to this young man. It is impossible for us to follow Jesus the same way the rich man could. The apostles left everything to follow Jesus. They left their homes, their wives and families but after the death of Jesus they went back to them.

Abraham was wealthy as was Jacob and many others. God blessed these men and called them faithful.

If we were to give up all of our wealth in order to be good servants why didn't Jesus tell Zacchaeus the tax collector that he didn't do enough for the poor?

Luke 19:8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.

Zaccahaeus had become wealthy by working with the Romans to collect taxes from his own people.

Jesus not only doesn't rebuke zaccheus but commends him.

Luke 19:9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.

It was a rich man named Joseph of Arimathea that gave Jesus a burial plot after his death.

Christians should be generous givers. None of us should give out of constraint or manipulation because some greedy pastor or bleeding heart liberal wants to look good.

If anyone is a hypocrite it is those who piously point accusing fingers at people and try to badger and harass Christians into doing what they themselves couldn't do.

These phonys need to sell there computers, cars, bicycles books and clothes and go live under a rock somewhere in order to be true to their convoluted logic.

In my opinion the reasons more Chrisiitan posters didn't want to post in this thread because they probably are quite generous and don't want to write how much they give.

To those of you who are worried about other Christians and how much they give or don't give my advice is look at yourself and see if you are practicing what you preach.

I believe we should be as generous as we can with what God has blessed us with. We should care about others. That is what should be preached. It isn't necessary to sanctimoniously look around and badger others into giving.

2 Corinthians 9:5 Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren, that they would go before unto you, and make up beforehand your bounty, whereof ye had notice before, that the same might be ready, as a matter of bounty, and not as of covetousness.

2 Corinthians 9:6 But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.

2 Corinthians 9:7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

And when you give try not to be a hypocrite.

Matthew 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Matthew 6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

Matthew 6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

Some men sound a trumpet by piously accusing others of not being generous. What they are implying is that they are.

It absolutely gags me... :smt078

 

[Soma-Sight]

These phonys need to sell there computers, cars, bicycles books and clothes and go live under a rock somewhere in order to be true to their convoluted logic.

Not necessarily.

I understand your argument in that some pious people point fingers and say to give it all up.......

But there is a fine line between your own personal physical, mental, and spiritual health and that of extravagance of material wealth.

I think we all could amke some minimal sacrifices in the least in order to help others without going to the extremes.

But on a side note I think it is possible to live the ideal Christian life without posessions as the rich young ruler was commanded to do.

It really cant be that hard to give it all up.

You will when your dead anyways.

 

[bibleberean]

These phonys need to sell there computers, cars, bicycles books and clothes and go live under a rock somewhere in order to be true to their convoluted logic.

Not necessarily.

I understand your argument in that some pious people point fingers and say to give it all up.......

But there is a fine line between your own personal physical, mental, and spiritual health and that of extravagance of material wealth.

I think we all could amke some minimal sacrifices in the least in order to help others without going to the extremes.

But on a side note I think it is possible to live the ideal Christian life without posessions as the rich young ruler was commanded to do.

It really cant be that hard to give it all up.

You will when your dead anyways.

I already agreed with what you wrote in the post you are quoting from...

Giving and laying up treasure in heaven is between the individual and God.

Anything above food and clothing is wealth according to the bible. The poor we will always have and in the words of Christ we can do good to them anytime we please.

Mark 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

 

[Drew]

Here is the exact text from the NIV, through to verse 25:

"A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is goodâ€â€except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother. All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said. When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

I will not attempt to make an argument, I will let the text speak for itself. This specific material aside, I do think that as long as have plasma TVs, take vacations in Europe, or really have anything above the bare essentials, we are being hypocrites if (and I repeat if) we take the "standard" line on many other morality issues.

Let's take divorce. Let's say Fred is unhappily married but there has been no adultery or abuse. Fred is miserable and seeks divorce. Many Christians will swoop down with "Marriage is not about your happiness, it is about commitment, living up to vows, etc." I would say to Fred's "accusers" that they had better be willing to live up to the same standard. When we become Christians, we commit to "denying ourselves, taking up our cross and following Him". I think it is clear that Jesus's teaching on real generosity are at least as clear as his pronouncements on divorce. How can we accuse Fred of breaking his commitment, when we break our commitment to minister to the poor as per the spirit of the parable to the young ruler? Giving 10 % just does not cut it as long as people are suffering the very real pain of not having the basics of life - food, water, security, health care. Is anyone prepared to argue that there would not be enormous benefit to the "least of these" through the billions of $$$ that could be raised if Christians gave up everything above the bare essentials that are needed for life.

This is not really an argument about Biblical exegesis - it is common sense. Bibleberean has stated "I believe we should be as generous as we can with what God has blessed us with. We should care about others." I think that this clearly means we must all give up a lot.

We are simply not willing to get serious about following Jesus' example of self-sacrifice, and we all engage in communal denial of this.

 

[bibleberean]

Abraham was not very compassionate by "bleeding heart" standards. He had more than was needed for the basics of life and didn't give up everything else but the bare necessities of life to bring about the utopia liberals falsely believe will bring about the end of world hunger.

Genesis 24:34 And he said, I am Abraham's servant.

Genesis 24:35 And the LORD hath blessed my master greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses.

Todays liberal would try to tell Abraham that he should give up everything he has for the poor and hungry except for the bare essentials.

That would mean Abraham could not bless the people who worked for him and give them more than food and clothing. Abraham would soon be reduced to being poor himself and so would the servants and people he generously employed.

I am 55 years old and in this country I have never seen a person starving to death. I have never witnessed a person who was forced to walk the streets naked because they had no clothes.

If most of us saw someone in that condition we would help them to get back on their feet. We shouldn't feel guilty because they were hungry and naked unless this person was starving because we put them there.

I saw those conditions in Vietnam as a young soldier. If I gave every dime I ever made to the poor in that country it wouldn't have changed a thing.

There will be no peace and no end of hunger in the world until Christ comes.

The Lord said we will always have those that are poor and in need and that is the way it will be until He returns.

Matthew 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

Guilt ridden liberals cannot rest. Instead of practicing what they preach and give away all they own and live the life style they claim everyone should live resort to attempting to coerce their fellow man into believing that as a group we have it in our power to bring about world peace and an end to hunger if we weren't so selfish.

The hypocrites can't even live up to their own standards. They own cars, houses, computers, multiple changes of clothes eat more than they need etc.

What they are good at is trying to lay a collective guilt trip on other Christians.

"Are we hypocrites?"

The question liberals should be asking is... "am I a hypocrite".

 

[Drew]

Todays liberal would try to tell Abraham that he should give up everything he has for the poor and hungry except for the bare essentials.

That would mean Abraham could not bless the people who worked for him and give them more than food and clothing. Abraham would soon be reduced to being poor himself and so would the servants and people he generously employed.

I am 55 years old and in this country I have never seen a person starving to death. I have never witnessed a person who was forced to walk the streets naked because they had no clothes.

If most of us saw someone in that condition we would help them to get back on their feet. We shouldn't feel guilty because they were hungry and naked unless this person was starving because we put them there.

Fellow Christians, I want to point out the very last line of what Bibleberean has said: "We shouldn't feel guilty because they were hungry and naked unless this person was starving because we put them there."

Do Bibleberean's words really speak for you? I will not continue to debate with him, but I am interested in what others have to say. As someone else has pointed out, this thread is getting little response from Christians. Why are we uncomfortable with this?

 

[destiny]

Fellow Christians, I want to point out the very last line of what Bibleberean has said: "We shouldn't feel guilty because they were hungry and naked unless this person was starving because we put them there."

Do Bibleberean's words really speak for you? I will not continue to debate with him, but I am interested in what others have to say. As someone else has pointed out, this thread is getting little response from Christians. Why are we uncomfortable with this?

I don't think we should feel guilty Drew, unless it is somehow our fault that they are in the position they are in.
I do however hope that we would have a compassionate heart toward anyone that we knew of in such a situation, and be willing to help them.

Giving is such a personal spirit led thing in my life, people are called to different lives and different places.
My husband can fix or repair anything, he is always using his giftings so others won't have to spend money on big repair bills.
There are so many ways we can give of ourselves.
It's easy for us to point our finger at another and say so and so should or shouldn't be doing this or that, but really it is only God we will give an account to.
Really everything we give and every person we minister to should be an overflow from "seeking first the kingdom of God", it's Him who adds everthing else.
If we are in right relationship with God, He is faithful to bring those divine appointments.
I'm not sure that Christians are uncomfortable talking about this so much as it's a personal thing, between them and God, it's not something we feel we need to explain to anyone else.

 

[Drew]

To me, the teaching of Jesus in the story of the rich young ruler is pretty clear. The text seems to be unambiguously say that giving to the point of having just the bare essentials is central to the Christian life. When I look at this and the story of the good samaritan, I am convinced that Jesus' teaching cannot be characterized as "giving is a personal thing between you and God", as if it were an option. Let me try another way of explaining this, referring to the divorce issue that I raised in an earlier post.

We all agree that Jesus says no divorce (except arguably for adultery and we might throw in the Pauline bit about a non-believer deserting). Either way, the words of Jesus, taken at face value seem to say "No divorce just because you are unhappy". And the Christian church generally rebukes those who divorce simply because they are unhappy, even though it happens a lot. So on this issue, we take Jesus (+Paul) "at their word".

Now lets turn to the "giving all to the poor" issue. As I said, I think that any reasonable reading of the young ruler story and the good samaritan story suggest that Jesus is demanding a level of sacrificial giving that is simply not consistent with having a DVD player, or vacationing in Disneyland, or air conditioning in the car, etc, given that there are (yes there really are) people in world whose very lives could be saved through our dollars (perhaps people are not starving to death in America or Europe, but they are in Africa and elsewhere). So pretend as we might, we cannot deny the reality of the need. Is anyone prepared to argue that there is no "life and death" need and that our dollars would not literally save lives?

My clear question is "why do we take Jesus at his word" re such issues as divorce (and lots of others) and yet somehow interpret his equally clear words about "giving till it hurts" as a kind of optional thing "between each person and God"? Why can't the unhappy divorcee say "this is a personal issue between me and God"?

I would like respondents to clearly address the consistency issue - either deal with it head on, or argue the premisses. If I am "pointing fingers", I am really only do so in respect to the matter of consistency. And in this regard, I am in the same boat as most.

 

[destiny]

Matthew 6

1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Luke 6:38
Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

These verses are our guidelines, yet they don't command that we give away everything we own.
Theres also another one that I didnt find which states "a man should be convinced in his own heart how he will give".

I don't see what you see when I read the story of the rich young ruler Drew.
The young man said he had kept all the commands from the time he was a boy. He had lived a good life. The Bible says that Jesus looked at him and loved him, but Jesus looked into the man's heart and saw something that was keeping him from becoming a follower, Jesus knew he loved his possessions more than he loved Him.
After the young man left, Jesus talked to his disciples about how hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven because they love material possessions more than Him.
I believe that Jesus asks us to give up everything that we love more than Him, and I believe that was the whole point of the story.
In some cases it could be something other than money and possessions.

 

[Drew]

Matthew 6

1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

[quote:60346]Luke 6:38
Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

[/quote:60346]
You claim that these verses do not require us to give up everything and this is obviously true. However, the Matthew text clearly deals with the issue of giving secretly. It simply does not address the matter of "how much" we should give. So this material does not bear on the question at issue. The Luke verses again make no clear prescription about "how much" we are to give. So again, this text is not really helpful - although if anything, this text suggests that the more we give the better. So why would we not give more? These verses are, at best, neutral on the matter of how much we should give. Being neutral, they in no way can be used to countermand Jesus' clear instruction to the young ruler that he give up everything.

The Bible says that Jesus looked at him and loved him, but Jesus looked into the man's heart and saw something that was keeping him from becoming a follower, Jesus knew he loved his possessions more than he loved Him. After the young man left, Jesus talked to his disciples about how hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven because they love material possessions more than Him

Jesus is certainly implying (as you suggest) that the rich can love their possessions more than Him. But you cannot just assume that this is the reason why Jesus asked him to give up his stuff. Consider another hypothetical situation. Fred goes up to Jesus and asks him what he needs to do to attain eternal life. Jesus says, "stop sleeping around with women". Fred walks away upset because he likes sleeping around with women more than he loves Jesus. Does this mean that if he loved Jesus more than he loved sleeping around with women, then this would make it OK to sleep around with women? Of course not. Now you may think I have pulled a trick on you. If so, please explain to me what is wrong with my analogy.

Besides, I could use precisely the same reasoning to argue that Jesus statement to the Pharisees about divorce was really only intended for them because they have some kind of a personal issue with commitment in marriage, just like the ruler has a personal issue (by your reasoning) with putting Jesus ahead of his wealth.

Let's face it. All of Jesus' words were directed to a single person or a group of persons. It seems like we are being selective when we assert that in one case the words were meant for that person(s) and in another that they are meant for us all.

 

[destiny]

Jesus is certainly implying (as you suggest) that the rich can love their possessions more than Him. But you cannot just assume that this is the reason why Jesus asked him to give up his stuff. Consider another hypothetical situation. Fred goes up to Jesus and asks him what he needs to do to attain eternal life. Jesus says, "stop sleeping around with women". Fred walks away upset because he likes sleeping around with women more than he loves Jesus. Does this mean that if he loved Jesus more than he loved sleeping around with women, then this would make it OK to sleep around with women? Of course not. Now you may think I have pulled a trick on you. If so, please explain to me what is wrong with my analogy.

The bible gives us many different analogies about giving, it lists several ways that we are to give to the poor within the whole context of the Bible.
However it doesn't consistantly say that we are to give up everything we own, but the bible does consistantly say that any form of sexual sin is wrong, as is greed.

Let's face it. All of Jesus' words were directed to a single person or a group of persons. It seems like we are being selective when we assert that in one case the words were meant for that person(s) and in another that they are meant for us all.

I believe when Jesus spoke to one certain person about a particular situation it was for the admonishing of all of His people who might be in that same situation.
I believe the story of the rich young ruler is a warning to us all, he wasn't just speaking to one person, he was using that situation as an example to you me and everybody not to love material possessions more than Him or we couldn't be his followers.