Is wealth a sin?

[mercyngrace]

You see the death of the animal as some big thing because perhaps we mostly don't live in a world where you kill your animals daily for food. We don;t witness the killing and slaughter so it becomes something gruesome and violent.

Speak for yourself, I was born on a farm.

edit: And interestingly enough, we didn't lay hands upon the animals, pray over them, or give parts to a priest...

I've also read some Jewish commentators who believe the scriptures indicate that man was supposed to be a vegetarian, adding further significance to the notion that ritual slaughtering represents way more than "just a part of cooking".

Some sources:

Jewish Encyclopedia

Vegetarian View of the Torah

Judaism and Animals: Vegetarianism

edit: Also worth considering is the fact that sacrifices were offered primarily in temples or high places. Why all the ritual surrounding dinner? Within your context of the sacrifice as primarily about preparing dinner, how do you explain Abraham and Isaac or specific guidelines for "peace offerings" and "sin offerings" in Leviticus?

And with that I have to run - I promised my son he could use my laptop today at 2 p.m. (he's a beta tester for Lego).

[the narrator]

Speak for yourself, I was born on a farm.

Did you help with the daily butchering? Did you call it a sacrifice each time?

I've also read some Jewish commentators who believe the scriptures indicate that man was supposed to be a vegetarian, adding further significance to the notion that ritual slaughtering represents way more than "just a part of cooking".

I've read commentators who said that the priests were master butchers and that the killing of the animal was simply a part of the meal preparation.

[Ahab]

So did the pig that provided my pork chops last night. I doubt you would call that a sacrifice though.

You see the death of the animal as some big thing because perhaps we mostly don't live in a world where you kill your animals daily for food. We don;t witness the killing and slaughter so it becomes something gruesome and violent.

To ancient cultures it was just a part of cooking.

You don't have to be ancient to know what it's like to kill an animal for food.

Most people I know who do it would rather not kill it because they see the beauty in the animal and they have a kind of love for it, especially if it is one of their very best animals which would be good for breeding. They have to sort of detach themselves from the animal they're going to kill while thinking of the good things the animals death will provide for them, which they otherwise would not have without the death of that animal, or at least another of the same kind of animal.

Sometimes I wonder if that sort of "detached" thinking is why more people don't accept the gospel, thinking maybe that more people would be able to accept it if God didn't have to die.

But, if he didn't die, we wouldn't be able to live, or at least not in the way we can by virtue of his death, and that's what I think most Christians generally think of when thinking of him.

[cinepro]

FWIW, author Nick Hornby ("About a Boy", "High Fidelity") wrote an interesting book called "How To Be Good" that actually tackles some of the issues in this thread. Specifically, what would life be like if someone were actually committed to the principles of charity espoused in the scriptures (and this thread). And what would it be like to live with such a person?

Kate, a doctor, wife and mother, is in the midst of a difficult decision: whether to leave or stay with her bitter, sarcastic husband David (who proudly writes a local newspaper column called "The Angriest Man in Holloway"). The long-term marriage has gone stale, but is it worth uprooting the children and the comfortable lifestyle? Then David meets a faith healer called Dr. Goodnews, and suddenly converts to an idealistic do-gooder: donating the children's computer to an orphanage, giving away the family's Sunday dinner to homeless people and inviting runaways to stay in the guest room (and convincing the neighbors to do likewise).

[Ahab]

Specifically, what would life be like if someone were actually committed to the principles of charity espoused in the scriptures (and this thread). And what would it be like to live with such a person?

Have you seen a movie called "The Blind Side" ?

It's based on a true story, and it's one of the best examples of true charity that I've ever seen.

Of course, it helped that they had a ton of money, but similar things are done all the time by people with a lot less money.

[Vanguard]

True, money has the ability to change other lives in a way good looks can't; I think the principle is the same. But let's explore money for a minute, because it is the easiest.

Peter Singer created a scenario similar to the following - I'm going by memory, hope I don't screw it up:

You are leaving your house for a fancy event, for which you've already purchased tickets. Wearing your best shoes, clothes, and other trappings, you proceed towards your car and just as you are about to get into the car, you hear urgent cries coming from your neighbours backyard. You rush to see what's happening, and you recognize the young 14 year old daughter of your neighbour, frantic - "Help my brother, he's just fallen in the pool and can't get out!' You turn to see the 4 year-old going under the surface. Now, if you jump in and save the boy, you will permanently ruin your shoes, and will miss the event for which you have tickets, thus sacrificing a lot of money. Nonetheless, you jump into the pool, and save the drowning child.

Singer

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sorry, Old Bean.

Not my intent.

It is just that, in America, sometimes the politics is the elephant in the living room even when the gospel is supposedly what is being discussed.

I'll put down my stick and just slowly back away now . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Old bean? You are older than I am. Lol. I believe it was not your intent to get this political. But what you had posted had a few words in it that would quickly trun that way. I myself was tempted to post more about that but I didn't want to go there. Thanks for understanding.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why shouldn't wealth be considered anything but neutral?

I dunno I just think wealth is like a light or a car or a gun or any number of other things.

Almost by definition, if it is considered wealth then it's something that can be shared, isn't it?

Yes it can be.

Why wouldn't anything that would encourage one to keep wealth be considered bad?

I don't understand this question. Can you clarify it. THanks.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

See the New Testament, particularly the Gospels.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Wait a sec, I think you are refering to the rich young ruler. We can gather from what the saviour said it would appear that he loved money and stuff more than people. That is not the same as having an extra room in your house that is unused or even having 20,000 in the bank (not that you claimed that was evil but if we take what you claimed as gospel truth, the logical extention is that any bit of wealth that we have that some one else can use is a sin) . I am looking for a specific statement that backs up your interpretation/ assertion.

Thanks.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

FWIW, author Nick Hornby ("About a Boy", "High Fidelity") wrote an interesting book called "How To Be Good" that actually tackles some of the issues in this thread. Specifically, what would life be like if someone were actually committed to the principles of charity espoused in the scriptures (and this thread). And what would it be like to live with such a person?

Interesting.

[Ahab]

Almost by definition, if it is considered wealth then it's something that can be shared, isn't it? Why wouldn't anything that would encourage one to keep wealth be considered bad?

You can keep wealth and share it at the same time. It's simply a matter of allowing others to enjoy your wealth with you.

And btw, while I'm thinking about it, our Lord's command to a rich person telling him to sell all that he had and give to the poor wouldn't necessarily leave the rich man out in the cold, because if he sold everything he had and started giving it away he would come to a point where he would be poor (in this world's goods) and thus he could justifiably give some to himself, or keep it, because he would then be among the poor folk Jesus told him to give his wealth to.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Have you seen a movie called "The Blind Side" ?

It's based on a true story, and it's one of the best examples of true charity that I've ever seen.

Of course, it helped that they had a ton of money, but similar things are done all the time by people with a lot less money.

See here is the interesting thing, there are few people in this thread championing that we must give only what we don't need away. I agree that the blind side represnets a really good case of charity, but notice that they still had lots of money and nice things that they did not give away.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You can keep wealth and share it at the same time. It's simply a matter of allowing others to enjoy your wealth with you.

And btw, while I'm thinking about it, our Lord's command to a rich person telling him to sell all that he had and give to the poor wouldn't necessarily leave the rich man out in the cold, because if he sold everything he had and started giving it away he would come to a point where he would be poor (in this world's goods) and thus he could justifiably give some to himself, or keep it, because he would then be among the poor folk Jesus told him to give his wealth to.

Again, the story of the rich yound ruler is not one of giving all to the poor. I think it rather illistrates that what the love of money can do to someone. Many people use that scripture to try and justify a position that I don't think is the intent of the message. That is that we give every last thing away to the poor.

[Ahab]

See here is the interesting thing, there are few people in this thread championing that we must give only what we don't need away. I agree that the blind side represnets a really good case of charity, but notice that they still had lots of money and nice things that they did not give away.

I think the main point is to share what we can with others, in our efforts to help as well as we help ourselves, and I think it's also important to point out that most of us can share a lot more than we think we can by giving up some things that are really not that important, or as important as helping someone else to enjoy some good things, too.

The Blind Side does show a really good example of true charity at work, but they really didn't sacrifice very much to do what they did.

For another good movie that shows a really good example of true charity at work, think about "Schindler's List".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think the main point is to share what we can with others, in our efforts to help as well as we help ourselves, and I think it's also important to point out that most of us can share a lot more than we think we can by giving up some things that are really not that important, or as important as helping someone else to enjoy some good things, too.

The Blind Side does show a really good example of true charity at work, but they really didn't sacrifice very much to do what they did.

For another good movie that shows a really good example of true charity at work, think about "Schindler's List".

You know the most interesting thing is that "we can have what we need and we should give the rest to the poor" What we need is never defined in teh scriptures.

The other nice thing about that move the blind side is that it is not required that you give a huge % that matters. It is the intent of our hearts. I think a lot can be learned from that movie.

[mercyngrace]

Again, the story of the rich yound ruler is not one of giving all to the poor. I think it rather illistrates that what the love of money can do to someone. Many people use that scripture to try and justify a position that I don't think is the intent of the message. That is that we give every last thing away to the poor.

The acount of the rich young ruler is but one illustration of how the Lord sees our charitable responsibility.

From Mark 12:

38

[Ahab]

Again, the story of the rich yound ruler is not one of giving all to the poor.

Obviously, because that rich young ruler didn't give all that he had to the poor, as the Lord told him to do.

The rich young ruler could have chosen to do that, though, and if he had he would have received many blessings from the Lord for doing it. Instead, though, it served to show what a person can miss out on if they don't do what the Lord has commanded.

I think it rather illistrates that what the love of money can do to someone.

Yes, and in that case it kept that rich young ruler from being able to enjoy many blessings from the Lord, for his obedience, because he didn't obey.

Many people use that scripture to try and justify a position that I don't think is the intent of the message. That is that we give every last thing away to the poor.

If we don't, though, we'll end up like the rich young ruler, who prized his money and his possessions more than his desire to help the poor.

[ttribe]

If we don't, though, we'll end up like the rich young ruler, who prized his money and his possessions more than his desire to help the poor.

Actually, I think that story had less to do with giving one's riches to the poor and more to do with obeying God.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Obviously, because that rich young ruler didn't give all that he had to the poor, as the Lord told him to do.

The rich young ruler could have chosen to do that, though, and if he had he would have received many blessings from the Lord for doing it. Instead, though, it served to show what a person can miss out on if they don't do what the Lord has commanded.

Yes, and in that case it kept that rich young ruler from being able to enjoy many blessings from the Lord, for his obedience, because he didn't obey.

If we don't, though, we'll end up like the rich young ruler, who prized his money and his possessions more than his desire to help the poor.

I take it that the rich young ruler didn't give anything to the poor. He loved his money more than the Lord. For that he was unwilling to follow God.

I think it more than just his desire to help the poor, but his desire to follow the lord. Jesus knew the intent of his heart.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually, I think that story had less to do with giving one's riches to the poor and more to do with obeying God.

We have a winner.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The acount of the rich young ruler is but one illustration of how the Lord sees our charitable responsibility.

From Mark 12:

Notice he condemned those who cast in of their abundance. Their offerings cost them nothing even though they "cast in much" (v.41). He praises the widow, who cast in "all of her living" (v.44).

This is great. I think one other thing we can learn here is the intent of the heart.

[Ahab]

Actually, I think that story had less to do with giving one's riches to the poor and more to do with obeying God.

Obeying the Lord would have meant giving up his riches, though, so in that case it amounted to the same thing.

[Ahab]

We have a winner.

Do we have a retraction, yet?

[ttribe]

Obeying the Lord would have meant giving up his riches, though, so in that case it amounted to the same thing.

Key words - "in that case."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do we have a retraction, yet?

A retraction? Why? And of what?