Can A Rich Man Enter the Kingdom of God?

[David Bokovoy]

Rabbinical leaders could be poor in the day or not. The two fold question is interesting. Was he wealthy, and if so, did he give all he had to the poor. Both points seem to be open for debate given the speculation of Buchanan regarding the issue. For instance, was Christ not at one point a young man before his ministry and did he accumulate wealth and therefore was he less worthy? Or was Christ always equally worthy, thus making wealth a non issue in the question of righteousness and morality?

The accumulation of wealth is a good thing if one does so to build the kingdom of God. "And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good

[Jeff K.]

The accumulation of wealth is a good thing if one does so to build the kingdom of God. "And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good

[Jeff K.]

Let me get this, Jeff. I offer scriptural evidence that seems rather clear... and you just keep repeating your position without making an argument. I suppose you don't want to be taken seriously.

Seriously, you actually believe you interpretation of the scriptures is objective truth? Sorry, reality check, your interpretation of scripture is NOT clear scriptural evidence. You seem clouded by politics not the clarity of doctrine.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

I read the bible, and from what I have seen, you don't seem to, its cloiser to you reading political dialogue and you try to make the bible fit your politics. You subsume Christ to you political agenda because he is an implement of justification rather than seeking truth. It is not the correct way to understand doctrine, a doctrine you seem to miss completely.

LOL Now its about my political agenda? kind of sad to see you go this way, Jeff. FYI, I'm not a follower of Christ, I think Christ was quite insane (or just poorly interpreted), and Christ's views are completely apolitical in this part to begin with. Saying YOU should give to the poor does not mean 1) you should tax others to give to the poor, 2) we should have no government, 3) we should have a small government, 4) we should have a big government, or any combination of these. Sharpen those critical thinking skills, Jeff.

Thank you for proving my point. Since Christ has no meaning for you beyond being insane, changing his teachings is little more than a convenient tool. You cannot understand Christ and so you are already at a disadvantage.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Judas wanted the money to help the poor. And so judged Mary and others because he wanted the money used in a way he thought was better.

You seriously need to read the Bible, bro. John 12: 6 "He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief" It says clearly that he criticized Mary because he wanted the money. Got it? He didn't care for the poor, he cared for himself.

Sigh, think deeply. You yourself will say anything to get what you want because you do not believe any doctrine exists within the teachings, in other words, you feel free to twist and turn the words anyway you wish. Just as Judas did. Your logic and reasoning are twisted by your motivation, just as Judas did. To you none of this is real or important, only your pushing your agenda. Christ was apolitical, you are not.

Do you get it yet?

[Jeff K.]

Quote

You claim exception to the rule. Christ did not live by exception to the rule, that is part of what made him Christ.

In a sense Christ was making an exception to the rule (since Christ was to be treated differently, obviously) but at the same time he was stating a rule (treat him differently than to others). There isn't anything wrong with this and this doesn't make Christ a hypocrite.

Did Christ almost starve because he always gave his food to the starving? No. Christ knew that class and wealth have nothing to do with righteousness, indeed Christ was probably better off than many around him. The argument that poor men are more moral is fallacious before God. And while you think Christ insane, we know Him as the Son of God who offered all He was for us. Christ was not exempted from suffering, pain, hardship, poverty and even betrayal. In fact he suffered more. The question of the oil was important in that it established that wealth was not the issue for morality or righteousness. Those who argue that it was follow the logic that Judas Iscariot gave. Which was rebuked by Christ.

Of course wto someone who thinks Christ is insane, it becomes easy to ignore Christs intention for one's own politics.

[elguanteloko]

Seriously, you actually believe you interpretation of the scriptures is objective truth?

No.

Sorry, reality check, your interpretation of scripture is NOT clear scriptural evidence. You seem clouded by politics not the clarity of doctrine.

red herring. you don't even address what I'm saying at all and resort to criticize what you imagine my politics to be.

Thank you for proving my point. Since Christ has no meaning for you beyond being insane, changing his teachings is little more than a convenient tool. You cannot understand Christ and so you are already at a disadvantage.

Another red herring. My interpretation of scripture has nothing to do with my personal beliefs of Christ's teachings. I don't need to believe Christ is the son of God to analyze what the Bible says.

Sigh, think deeply. You yourself will say anything to get what you want because you do not believe any doctrine exists within the teachings, in other words, you feel free to twist and turn the words anyway you wish. Just as Judas did. Your logic and reasoning are twisted by your motivation, just as Judas did. To you none of this is real or important, only your pushing your agenda. Christ was apolitical, you are not.

Do you get it yet?

LOL What a joke this answer is. Fact is, you said Judas cared for the poor... the bible says he didn't. face it.

Did Christ almost starve because he always gave his food to the starving? No.

No one here is interpreting Jesus to say you should give your food to others until you starve to dead. Come on, brother, start getting serious now and quit the red herrings and strawmen.

Christ knew that class and wealth have nothing to do with righteousness, indeed Christ was probably better off than many around him.

Evidence?

The argument that poor men are more moral is fallacious before God.

How many times before you get I'm NOT saying such a thing?

And while you think Christ insane, we know Him as the Son of God who offered all He was for us. Christ was not exempted from suffering, pain, hardship, poverty and even betrayal. In fact he suffered more. The question of the oil was important in that it established that wealth was not the issue for morality or righteousness. Those who argue that it was follow the logic that Judas Iscariot gave. Which was rebuked by Christ.

I gave you scriptural evidence that contradicted what you were saying. Face it, refute it with evidence, or keep on making a fool of yourself.

Of course wto someone who thinks Christ is insane, it becomes easy to ignore Christs intention for one's own politics.

I think Christ was insane for other reasons that have nothing to do with what we are trying to discuss.

[blackstrap]

I have seen that a good way to be become resented and even despised is to give someone something too often.

If I provide an opportunity for a man to do work and get a fair wage there is rarely any resentment.On the other hand if I pay him to just sit he may think me a fool.

The poor need opportunities not handouts.Wealth can create those opportunities,poverty cannot.

Contrary to the current educational philosophy,self worth is built by actual success not false and unmerited praise or reward.

We have seen what happens when aid money is given to a country without wisdom. There are also many examples of aid given to build wells ,schools,hospitals,etc, and provide a way for a people to enrich the community rather than the elite few.

If I were to liquidate my estate and GIVE all to the poor,within a very sort time both its recipients and I would be equally poor.

[Jeff K.]

Those with political agendas that they hold in holier places than doctrine should know there is a difference between helping the poor and simply giving money to them. In the former more effort and thought is required, in the latter you merely replace the band aid of a few coins in place so that you can assuage your conscience that you were somehow ok.

The poor are not anymore moral than any other class of people.

I was poor, the point of not having food to eat. I was not automatically elevated to the level of moral paragon. Situations do not make us moral, what we do in situations does.

[Lightbearer]

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.

I like what the Book of Mormon says on the subject:

(Jacob 2:17-19)"Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you. But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good

[elguanteloko]

I like what the Book of Mormon says on the subject:From this I am to understand that being "rich" is not a sin, but setting our hearts upon our riches is a sin. In fact while being rich has temptations that the poor do not have, being poor also has it's temptations. Such as envy, coveting that which they do not have, ingratitude (this can be one for the rich as well). Pride is a particular stumbling block for the rich, and yet being poor can also cause pride as well, "humble way..." So the center most important point is the attitude of the person. Humility being the all encompassing factor. Also do not forget father Abraham who is a prototype of faithfulness, sacrifice, and righteousness was VERY RICH! Yet his riches is not what defined him, it was his trust in God. In fact as we keep the commandments the Lord has said He will prosper us, that can be a test to see what we will do with those riches and prosperiety. The following shows the downfalls of being rich and poor:So while it may be difficult for a rich man to get into heaven, it is equally difficult for a poor man who does not have a pure heart.

Tell me something, Lightbearer. What is the practical difference (forgeting intent or how you got to the following situations) between being poor (Christ-type of poor and NOT starving or in serious distress that may put you or your family in danger or something) and having riches "[...] to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and to administer relief to the sick and the afflicted (Jacob 2)"? Seems to me that there is no difference between being poor because you gave everything to help the extremely needy and being rich but your riches being used to help the extremely needy. Would you distinguish a poor (again, see the type of poor I'm talking about) person from one that is rich but gives his riches to help those in extreme hunger and need?

Would a "good rich" person buy a $300,000 house instead of a house that just meets his needs? Would the "good rich" buy a $30,000 piano instead of saving literally thousands of lives? (notice I'm not even using "poor" as being someone who is starving or in a condition of serious distress) I really don't think Christ's standard is being considered here.

[semlogo]

Lets explore this....

Did he own a fine cloak? Why yes. Now to someone who isn't fully aware of the historical significance of fine cloting in the pre industrial age, it seems a rather small thing. And so in their ignorance they believe that owning such a cloak does not reflect a significant increase in wealth. And yet, in ages when one change of clothing in an entire life is what the vast majority had in those times, it becomes significant. So what you call a joke is more likely a reflection of your own ignorance on the matter, which is itself amusing.

CFR on "fine cloak." He wasn't naked. Do you have a source on how much his robe cost?

CFR it wasn't controlled by Him, or given to His organization. You see, you complain that if you are rich you are already morally inferior in some way. This is a projection of covetousness, not the true light of Christ. Christ had access to things that made his life significantly better off than those he administered to. In effect, He was richer. Your line of reasoning would make Christ morally indferior to those he adminsitered to. I find that a somewhat repugnant view and reject it, just as I reject the logic of Judas Iscariot, which is also implied in your unknowing criticism of Christ.

CFR that it was. There is nothing in the scriptures stating that it was. Actually, as elguanteloko I think pointed out, the woman retained possession of the oil, yes?

No, the sadness comes when people ignorant of history make sweeping generalizations and engage in class warfare while rejecting what Christ was really all about, and perhaps using the sin of covetousness in order to justify their own anger at others. But I and others forgive you your lack of knowledge on the matter and your unknowing slight against Christ because he wasn't as poor as those he ministered to help. You simply weren't aware.

What's really sad is that you're so desperate to prove Christ wrong and make him out to be a hypocrite that you're going to claim that because he wore clothing and because a woman once anointed his feet with oil, that Jesus was "wealthy." Sad, sad, sad.

Instead of going through all these logical twists and turns just to protect your political ideology, wouldn't it be easier to give up that earthly ideology and believe Christ? I suppose the difficulty lies in your attachment to your political opinions. Are those opinions worth more than your soul?

[semlogo]

I agree completely. His wealth or anyone's wealth is not the issue. It is how we and he used that wealth with an eye single to the glory of God.

You should start your own prosperity ministry.

[Ahab]

Here is how it should work; individuals helping others, not governments.

"Government" is a group of people saying what people should do and not do, and while that example you cited is a good example of how a person should treat other people, there are many more ways than that to do what should be done in this world.

Would this man be able to do such service if he didn't have the means to give?

true charity

All of us have something to give other people, whether it's some of our money or our time or our talents or anything else God has blessed us with and with which we can use to serve other people.

What I have in mind is something more like what the scriptures talk about when saying we should have all things in common, with there being no rich or poor people among us or others.

Do you realize that if the rich gave as much as they should give to the poor, instead of taking from the poor to make themselves rich, we could get rid of having poor people as well as rich people and then what we would be left with is a world filled with "middle-class" people?

The key is in striking a balance... with nobody being poor, and with nobody being rich... so that everyone is in the same "class" as everyone else.

[Lightbearer]

Tell me something, Lightbearer. What is the practical difference (forgeting intent or how you got to the following situations) between being poor (Christ-type of poor and NOT starving or in serious distress that may put you or your family in danger or something) and having riches "[...] to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and to administer relief to the sick and the afflicted (Jacob 2)"? Seems to me that there is no difference between being poor because you gave everything to help the extremely needy and being rich but your riches being used to help the extremely needy. Would you distinguish a poor (again, see the type of poor I'm talking about) person from one that is rich but gives his riches to help those in extreme hunger and need?

Would a "good rich" person buy a $300,000 house instead of a house that just meets his needs? Would the "good rich" buy a $30,000 piano instead of saving literally thousands of lives? (notice I'm not even using "poor" as being someone who is starving or in a condition of serious distress) I really don't think Christ's standard is being considered here.

Well first off you cannot separate intent from practicality in making such judgments of the use of wealth. I think that is the prime reason members of the Church are given the gift of the Holy Ghost, so they can make the proper decisions in using their wealth the way Christ would have them use it. I think each man or woman will have to make their own judgment and no government or other individuals can make that choice for them. No President of the United States or King or Queen can say "I think that is enough money for them to make..." I am by no means rich, so I have not had to make such choices and I sure as hell do not want a sanctamonious socialist political hack making it for me. I cannot feed the world, but I can do my best to do my part by paying fast offerings and working in the Bishop's storehouse (both of which I have done). I help people as I can, but as the Book of Mormon says:

(Mosiah 4:24-27) "And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give. And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned; and your condemnation is just for ye covet that which ye have not received. And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you

[Rock_N_Roll]

So, how do you define "rich" anyway? I have a home (and a mortgage) with two cars in the garage and a steady income. To most of the world, (especially those living in grass huts with barely enough to eat) I would be considered "rich". To my neighbors I am simply "middle class". To Donald Trump, I might be considered "poor".

[Deborah]

Do you realize that if the rich gave as much as they should give to the poor, instead of taking from the poor to make themselves rich, we could get rid of having poor people as well as rich people and then what we would be left with is a world filled with "middle-class" people?

And who are you or anyone else to determine what anyone "should" give? We live under the law of stewardship where each steward is responsible for his own property and accountable to God. If someone is not using his wealth justly it is something he will have to account to God. It is not man's nor government's responsibility to make that determination. It is frightening to think that a secular government, run by men with their own selfish goals, would determine where one's productive earnings should go.

Furthermore, you are only seeing what you think is going on. Because someone lives in a big house doesn't mean they aren't giving a great deal of their wealth to help the poor. In that big house they may employ other people. such as maids, gardeners, etc, all who are enabled to support their own families because of the job they have in that big house. By your reasoning we shouldn't build such beautiful temples with the finest workmanship nor should the church invest its business interests in such things as the SLC mall, which will end up creating more jobs.

Such a black and white view fails to see how many jobs are created when someone is able to keep wealth to invest and grow. A steward is expected to take part of his moneys to expand on his investment and enlarge it, for the benefit of more people. If he doesn't use his stewardship wisely he will lose that which he has.

[Ahab]

Poverty is a great teacher, it makes us appreciate the blessings the Lord has given us. I know this because I have known poverty.

To reject God's blessings both spiritual and material that we have received because a few hard hearted individuals choose to misread the scriptures and toss their own judgement in, is to reject God's blessings in our lives.

The real question that some of these misguided people should ask themselves is not:

"Can a rich man enter the kingdom of God?" But what do men with any affluence do with their riches to enter the kingdom of God.

They simply give them away while trying to be as fair and considerate as they can be.

Charity is to simply give something away without requiring anything else in exchange, and if you think people have charity when they "sell" what they have to the poor or when otherwise requiring or expecting the poor to do something to get what they have, other than to simply "receive" it, then you're not thinking of what "charity" is all about.

[Deborah]

So, how do you define "rich" anyway?

This is the great dilemma and the parameters keep changing, depending on who's in power and what their goals are.

[thesometimesaint]

Deborah:

Of course poverty is relative. A millionaire in a group of billionaires is relatively poor. But I serious doubt many here would consider a millionaire as poor.

In 2009 in the good old US of A "Middle Class" is defined as total yearly compensation for a family of four of less than $120,000 and more than $16600(The equivalent of working full time at minimum wage). So by definition less than $16600 is poor.

[Ahab]

And who are you or anyone else to determine what anyone "should" give?

Who do think we need to be? You just gave an example, yourself, of what someone "should" do when showing charity to others.

Do you think we should all act that way, or not?

We live under the law of stewardship where each steward is responsible for his own property and accountable to God.

Yes, and when some of us don't give as we/they should give we all suffer, collectively.

If someone is not using his wealth justly it is something he will have to account to God.

Yes, he will, won't he.

Do you have a problem with people who try to warn other people before they get themselves in some trouble with God?

It is not man's nor government's responsibility to make that determination.

It may not be our "responsibility", but it's really easy for us to volunteer to do that when we can see what is going on in this world.

Take what a lot of bankers and financiers on Wall Street have done recently, for example. Do you think all of those people were justified in what they were doing, or do you see a pretty clear case (or two, or more than one) where some people were not good stewards of all God has given all of us on this planet?

Or, do you totally withhold your opinion on things like that, altogether, figuring you just don't know enough to weigh in on that kind of an issue?

You may be ignorant of what people should do to be good stewards, but I'm not and I see no problem at all in telling people how we should be with all of our "stuff".

It is frightening to think that a secular government, run by men with their own selfish goals, would determine where one's productive earnings should go.

Have you ever considered running for public office? Maybe what we need is more people like you to straighten all of those "bad" people out in our secular government?

Furthermore, you are only seeing what you think is going on. Because someone lives in a big house doesn't mean they aren't giving a great deal of their wealth to help the poor. In that big house they may employ other people. such as maids, gardeners, etc, all who are enabled to support their own families because of the job they have in that big house. By your reasoning we shouldn't build such beautiful temples with the finest workmanship nor should the church invest its business interests in such things as the SLC mall, which will end up creating more jobs.

So rich people who hire servants to attend to their whims are doing their servants a favor by paying them some money to be their hired servants?

Do you also think, maybe, that the whole U.S. economy is set up so the "rich" can hire themselves some servants, aka employees, for the benefit of those who are poor in this world, with the poor getting the better end of the deal?

That doesn't make very much good sense to me, but maybe I just need to keep thinking about that some more.

Such a black and white view fails to see how many jobs are created when someone is able to keep wealth to invest and grow. A steward is expected to take part of his moneys to expand on his investment and enlarge it, for the benefit of more people. If he doesn't use his stewardship wisely he will lose that which he has.

The way I now see it: Charity is the key to living a good life for all who are concerned, and the type of economy the world advocates now is not based upon charity, but instead upon the idea that people should strive to be rich so they can take advantage of the poor, in numerous ways.

The way I once saw it: If I can just get and keep enough of something called "money", I will no longer need to do any more work in this world because I'll be able to "hire" all kinds of people to work for me, as long as I have enough money to pay them, and the people who work for me will be glad to do it, too, because otherwise they would be even more poor than they would be without their "wages" from me and instead might end up living out on the streets if it were not for the "generosity" of me, and other rich people.

[Ahab]

Deborah:

Of course poverty is relative. A millionaire in a group of billionaires is relatively poor. But I serious doubt many here would consider a millionaire as poor.

In 2009 in the good old US of A "Middle Class" is defined as total yearly compensation for a family of four of less than $120,000 and more than $16600(The equivalent of working full time at minimum wage). So by definition less than $16600 is poor.

By the same measures you used to determine the middle class and the poor, you can also determine who is considered to be the "rich" of the world, too.

Poor: Annual income of $16,600 or less.

Middle-class: Annual income between 16,600 and 120,000

Rich: Annual income of more than $120,000

[Deborah]

Do you have a problem with people who try to warn other people before they get themselves in some trouble with God?

Not when they have authority from God to do so, which you do not.

Take what a lot of bankers and financiers on Wall Street have done recently, for example. Do you think all of those people were justified in what they were doing, or do you see a pretty clear case (or two, or more than one) where some people were not good stewards of all God has given all of us on this planet?

But it is not you or I who are authorized to judge, not unless you can see into a person's heart and know every detail of their lives.

So rich people who hire servants to attend to their whims are doing their servants a favor by paying them some money to be their hired servants?

If they pay a fair wage and help those people support themselves they are certainly doing their employees a favor.

[Deborah]

Of course poverty is relative. A millionaire in a group of billionaires is relatively poor.

You're being silly now. You know that's not what anyone is talking about.

[thesometimesaint]

Ahab:

Bingo.