Can A Rich Man Enter the Kingdom of God?

[semlogo]

I can't believe I have to explain myself...

The Liberal fallacy is the the poor are in some position of moral authority simply because they are poor and for no other reason. The scriptures are clear that the poor can be just as prideful as the rich can.

The economic status of a person gives them no special moral authority.

You vs Jesus. Sorry, I believe Jesus.

[LifeOnaPlate]

This is a classic Liberal fallacy- placing poor people in some sort of moral authority because they are poor.

(all in good fun, I just thought it was a funny chance to post this pic)

[BookofMormonLuvr]

You vs Jesus. Sorry, I believe Jesus.

So you honestly believe a person has moral authority by the mere fact that he is poor? No humility needed, eh? No Money=Heaven? Interesting concept...

And not one I believe Jesus was teaching.

[elguanteloko]

According to Robert Millet, "Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said when he taught that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. There is no metaphor intended. No softening of this hard saying by linguistic or cultural traditions is justifiable. The Savior said what he said. "Who then can be saved?" the apostles asked. "With men that trust in riches, it is impossible; but not impossible with men who trust in God and leave all for my sake, for with such all things are possible" (JST, Mark 10:22-26; compare JST, Matt. 19:26;JST Luke 18:27)."

The apostles found this doctrine quite difficult to accept. Do you guys accept it? Just curious.

Another reason why there aren't Christians anymore. A "Christian" today is so astonishingly different from what one would expect of a follower of the Christ.

1 Corinthians 2:16

"For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ

I don't see anyone with the mind of Christ and everytime someone says a specific person has "the Spirit" very strongly, I have to wonder if the spirit makes any difference.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

3 Nephi 12:3

Yea, blessed are the poor in spirit who come unto me for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

[elguanteloko]

The economic status of a person gives them no special moral authority.

"Moral authority" is kind of misleading. What is not misleading is that if you are rich you are not a follower of Christ. Can you name me a rich person who you think is the camel that will pass through the eye of a needle? Will this person trust in God to feed him and take care of him while he gives everything to the poor and goes around preaching in His name?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

"Moral authority" is kind of misleading. What is not misleading is that if you are rich you are not a follower of Christ. Can you name me a rich person who you think is the camel that will pass through the eye of a needle? Will this person trust in God to feed him and take care of him while he gives everything to the poor and goes around preaching in His name?

Are you telling me every poor person can?

How is the heart condition of the person lost in this whole discussion? Astounding.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

"What is not misleading is that if you are rich you are not a follower of Christ."

Are you truly willing to stand behind this pronouncement?

[elguanteloko]

Are you telling me every poor person can?

No. All follower of Christ will leave everything they have to help the poor.

[elguanteloko]

"What is not misleading is that if you are rich you are not a follower of Christ."

Are you truly willing to stand behind this pronouncement?

Absolutely.

[semlogo]

So you honestly believe a person has moral authority by the mere fact that he is poor? No humility needed, eh? No Money=Heaven? Interesting concept...

And not one I believe Jesus was teaching.

Jesus clearly taught and believed that yes, to a certain extent, there is a spiritual benefit to being poor and a disadvantage to being rich. You have to flatly contradict the words of Christ to believe otherwise.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Are you stalking me into other threads?

If by stalking you mean answering your question and then asking for a response, then yes. You asked me for a reference and I spent a few minutes putting it together for you. I think it would be sort of rude to ask for a reference and then ignore it after that.

[semlogo]

Bookofmormonlvr:

3 Nephi does not address the passage in Luke I quoted.

[Jeff K.]

Jesus was significantly richer than many of the poor around him, therefore was he condemnd because he did not give of his personal property (ie his cloak) was Judas right to condemn the spikenard of oil put upon the feet of Christ by Mary?

Of course not. It is amazing how people compartmentalize the scriptures without looking at the full and correct context within the life of Christ. Poverty does NOT create moral authority, righteousness in the form of Christ's love does. In that sense the amount of money one has has nothing to do with their moral authority.

Some may wish to condemn Christ for not giving of his substance, cloaks, oil, perfume and so on.... Using the logic some claim to use, you would be forced to, or call Christ Himself a hypocrite. I prefer to understand the correct context in the matter and see how Christ's stance was more in tune with the condemnation of desiring things of the world, not dividing moral superiority by economic standards. Silly me.

[Jeff K.]

Jesus clearly taught and believed that yes, to a certain extent, there is a spiritual benefit to being poor and a disadvantage to being rich. You have to flatly contradict the words of Christ to believe otherwise.

Are you stating that because Christ was not as poor as many he taught that he was somehow less morally able to teach? Remember "rich" is a relative term, not an objective one.

[elguanteloko]

Jesus was significantly richer than many of the poor around him, therefore was he condemnd because he did not give of his personal property (ie his cloak) was Judas right to condemn the spikenard of oil put upon the feet of Christ by Mary?

Of course not. It is amazing how people compartmentalize the scriptures without looking at the full and correct context within the life of Christ. Poverty does NOT create moral authority, righteousness in the form of Christ's love does. In that sense the amount of money one has has nothing to do with their moral authority.

Some may wish to condemn Christ for not giving of his substance, cloaks, oil, perfume and so on.... Using the logic some claim to use, you would be forced to, or call Christ Himself a hypocrite. I prefer to understand the correct context in the matter and see how Christ's stance was more in tune with the condemnation of desiring things of the world, not dividing moral superiority by economic standards. Silly me.

He gave the reason, though. It wasn't wrong for Mary to put oil upon his feet because he wasn't going to be there for much longer but we are going to have the poor for a while. Now that we don't have Christ with us and many poor among us... you get the point.

[elguanteloko]

Are you stating that because Christ was not as poor as many he taught that he was somehow less morally able to teach? Remember "rich" is a relative term, not an objective one.

Christ was the one being followed. Big difference.

[semlogo]

Are you stating that because Christ was not as poor as many he taught that he was somehow less morally able to teach? Remember "rich" is a relative term, not an objective one.

As far as can be gleaned from the scriptures, Christ owned no possessions at all. You can't get poorer than that.

[Deborah]

Jesus clearly taught and believed that yes, to a certain extent, there is a spiritual benefit to being poor and a disadvantage to being rich. You have to flatly contradict the words of Christ to believe otherwise.

The benefit referred to was the willingness to leave all to follow Christ. What shape would the church be in if it were the case that all just gave everything away? We then have the Moonies or some other fringe group. There is nothing wrong with wealth; it is one's attitude toward it that matters. I know poor people who are as far away from the spirit of Christ as the rich young man in the parable, and well-to-do people who are very humble and do a great deal to help others and serve in the church. I think Larry Miller in Utah is an example of this.

As far as can be gleaned from the scriptures, Christ owned no possessions at all. You can't get poorer than that.

And yet he had the means to travel and eat. Please CFR that Christ owned no possessions. I don't think I've read anything on this.

[Jeff K.]

Christ was the one being followed. Big difference.

So if one has followers one is released from the need to be poor in order to be moral? My that is an interesting concept? Are you sure?

[Deborah]

You're right, I'm sorry. It was Deborah.

I'm aware of current scholarship on the subject but given the debate on the subject it appears that the real interpretation is still in the air. It is still clear from the scriptures that it wasn't impossible for the rich man only more difficult because he would have to be willing to give up so much more. I also question that Christ requires everyone to give up all that they have, at least in this temporal world. Certainly the willingness to lay everything aside is part of the requirement for a consecrated life, but just as Abraham had to show willingness to sacrifice, so he may not be required to actually do it.

Also the story has to be seen in context. Jesus was speaking to one young man who had related all the things he had done. I think Christ was trying to teach him a lesson in humility by saying, yes you've done all this but how sincere are you really? How many people do things because they think it is required but don't really do them with the right intention and with a sincerity of heart. Had the young man agreed to give away all he had would the Lord actually have required it or might he have admonished him to use his wealth to build up the church and perhaps support missionaries who could reach more people?

[Jeff K.]

As far as can be gleaned from the scriptures, Christ owned no possessions at all. You can't get poorer than that.

I suggest you re-read the scriptures. He indeed did have a cloak of fine linen. And you overlook the very real issue of the spikenard of perfumed oil which you and Judas agree upon, that it should be sold and the proceeds given to the poor not reserved for Christ, after all, with what he recieved he was better off than the poor.

At least that is one apostle you agree with.

[Ceeboo]

As I am learning from another thread, it is all up to almighty Joseph Smith. (Or so I am told)

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Ahab]

As I am learning from another thread, it is all up to almighty Joseph Smith. (Or so I am told)

Peace,

Ceeboo

Be careful when choosing to believe something Ceeboo.

The fact that someone says something doesn't mean that what they are saying is true.

[semlogo]

I suggest you re-read the scriptures. He indeed did have a cloak of fine linen.

Wow. Don't you think that's a stretch? I hope this is intended to be a joke.

And you overlook the very real issue of the spikenard of perfumed oil which you and Judas agree upon, that it should be sold and the proceeds given to the poor not reserved for Christ, after all, with what he recieved he was better off than the poor.

Jesus didn't "own" it - it was applied to his person. Such desperate rhetorical stretching tells me that you have no argument and no defense.

At least that is one apostle you agree with.

It's a sad day when people like you who disagree with the plain teachings of Christ (and who presumably subscribe to some twisted version of the modern "prosperity gospels") accuse those who believe Christ of being in league with Judas.