Can A Rich Man Enter the Kingdom of God?

[Jeff K.]

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.

Wrong. Do you exhibit the pure love of Christ by shoving 20 dollars into the hands of an alcoholic, or do you exhibit the pure love of Christ by not doing so? Which would Christ want you to do if you knew the man would simply drink some more?

Better to help the alcholic in some other way. The dictate that we should simply give things away is simplistic and without merit since it takes away the idea of agency, agency in choosing how to best apply limited resources.

It takes a great deal more Christlike love to help the man find a job, and help him develop skills that the 20 bucks that makes you feel better at Christmas.

[Deborah]

Rich: Annual income of more than $120,000

You do realize that in some parts of the country 120,000 is middle class due to the high cost of living. That is why it's so unfair to put a number on it.

[Jeff K.]

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

Wrong.

A poor man in the US is middle class in Europe.

Below the poverty line in the US is pretty darn good in most other countries.

Of course you can say forget the other countries they aren't your concern, just the US. You might have an argument there, but I wouldn't try and make it to Christ.

I won't even go into the different costs of living from state to state. You can't live on 16K in Southern CA, and even 120K is not that easy in the OC. But 16 will do just fine in Nebraska. So no, the determination is wrong.

[Ahab]

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

Yes I do, via ordination to a holy office in the holy priesthood of God.

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.

A judge doesn't need to know every detail of a person's life to be able to judge fairly, and to see into a person's heart all you have to see is what they are doing, by choice.

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

If they pay a fair wage they're not doing anybody a favor because being fair doesn't involve extending a favor, and to pay a fair wage they'll need to do a lot more than pay with soem money because the money, itself, is and will be totally worthless unless they can get someone else to do exactly the same thing for them while simply offering them some "money" to do it.

[elguanteloko]

Well first off you cannot separate intent from practicality in making such judgments of the use of wealth.

Sorry for not having been clear enough there. I was taking about when looking at them. So, you see a "good rich" walking and you then see a "Christ-type" of poor (in the standard I'm using of poor). That's why I said that it didn't matter which of the two the person being seen was. Could you distinguish one from the other? I don't think we could.

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).

Wow, you missed the point entirely. Were you even trying to answer my question?

I help people as I can, but as the Book of Mormon says:

This does not answer my question, Lightbearer. Please read post #86 again.

[thesometimesaint]

Deborah:

So should I put you in doubter column?

How would you measure relative poverty?

Further what scale what would you use to determine poverty in a poor country as opposed to a rich country like the US? Do we use the asinine Heritage Foundation model of less than two big color TV's, and dining on fine wines bought with their Food Stamp card and driving a new big black welfare Cadillac?

[elguanteloko]

For everyone out here:

I think it would be of use to talk about helping the "poor" taking as poor those in extreme need. So, in the U.S. it's kind of hard for someone to die of starvation but it would be better to talk of the thousands that die everyday of hunger and poor-related causes; that is, those we can help to at least survive. I'm not talking about the give-me-beer-type of poor but the my-family-and-I-need-food-to-not-die type of poor. As "rich" we can define someone who can give without risking anything of comparable moral value.

[Ahab]

You do realize that in some parts of the country 120,000 is middle class due to the high cost of living. That is why it's so unfair to put a number on it.

Tell that to our government and the people making less than $16,600 a year.

I'm sure the poor would consider themselves to be rich if they made more than $120,000 a year.

[elguanteloko]

I want to pose the question I asked Lightbearer to everyone here. Note: PLEASE read the definitions I'm using HERE carefully!

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.

[Ahab]

Wrong.

Thank you for being bold when sharing your personal opinion.

Do you exhibit the pure love of Christ by shoving 20 dollars into the hands of an alcoholic, or do you exhibit the pure love of Christ by not doing so?

"Shoving" it? No, I don't think I'd be exhibiting the pure love of Christ if I "shoved" $20 into the hands of anyone.

Which would Christ want you to do if you knew the man would simply drink some more?

There are more choices than the two you have provided, and I think that if you thought more about it you would think of something Christ would want you to do.

Better to help the alcholic in some other way. The dictate that we should simply give things away is simplistic and without merit since it takes away the idea of agency, agency in choosing how to best apply limited resources.

My point was simply that if you or I choose to give something to someone, we should give it freely and without any conditions.

The key is in knowing that anything we choose to give should be something that is good to be given.

It takes a great deal more Christlike love to help the man find a job, and help him develop skills that the 20 bucks that makes you feel better at Christmas.

True, but I don't need to take everybody on as my own disciple as if it's up to me to teach someone else everything he needs to do to live a good life.

Anything I can do is a good thing to do as long as what I am doing is good.

[Deborah]

Sigh.

All of you who feel you should give away all your money please feel free to do so. Meanwhile don't make demands on others whose circumstances you don't know and who may have obligations you aren't aware of.

[elguanteloko]

Sigh.

All of you who feel you should give away all your money please feel free to do so. Meanwhile don't make demands on others whose circumstances you don't know and who may have obligations you aren't aware of.

That's why we can use a standard.

As "rich" we can define someone who can give without risking anything of comparable moral value.

[Ahab]

Wrong.

Then what were the correct figures the government issued for the year 2009?

A poor man in the US is middle class in Europe.

So what are the numbers they use in that country?

Below the poverty line in the US is pretty darn good in most other countries.

Those numbers were valid for people living in this country, though, weren't they?

In this country, $16,600 or less in annual income doesn't buy very much at all, even now.

Of course you can say forget the other countries they aren't your concern, just the US. You might have an argument there, but I wouldn't try and make it to Christ.

My point is that the rich should give to the poor, and when translated into American dollars that means those who make $120,000 or more in a year should give to those who make $16,600 or less in a year, according to what our government determines "rich" and "poor" to be.

If you want to be more generous than that, you are free to do so, but I think it helps when we have some guidelines to use as the minimum guidelines.

I won't even go into the different costs of living from state to state. You can't live on 16K in Southern CA, and even 120K is not that easy in the OC. But 16 will do just fine in Nebraska. So no, the determination is wrong.

All people need to do is give more money to those who are poor, though, and then all of our (monetary) problems will be solved.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Being poor in the US is destitute in Europe. Where the governments there provide much more in terms of goods and services to their respective population than does the US.

Below the poverty line in the US is destitute in much of the industrialized world.

Qatar is the richest country per capita in the world followed by Luxembourg, Norway, Brunei, and Singapore.

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

Your not going to do just fine earning $16600 even in Nebraska at some 96% of Cost of Living.

http://www.neded.org/files/research/accra.pdf

[Ahab]

Sigh.

All of you who feel you should give away all your money please feel free to do so. Meanwhile don't make demands on others whose circumstances you don't know and who may have obligations you aren't aware of.

Sigh.

All of you who are rich should give to the poor until you all become middle class. That way, the poor will be middle class, and you will be middle class, and those who are middle class will still be middle class, which is a pretty good balance, all things considered.

[mnn727]

According to Robert Millet......

Robert Millet (and others) needs to study the Gospel more. Anyone can enter heaven - the requirements are the same no matter who you are, but many rich men(and women) set their sites on earthly rewards rather than heavenly rewards.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.:

Being poor in the US is destitute in Europe. Where the governments there provide much more in terms of goods and services to their respective population than does the US.

Below the poverty line in the US is destitute in much of the industrialized world.

Qatar is the richest country per capita in the world followed by Luxembourg, Norway, Brunei, and Singapore.

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

Your not going to do just fine earning $16600 even in Nebraska at some 96% of Cost of Living.

http://www.neded.org/files/research/accra.pdf

No that is not true. I have lived in Europe. Those below the poverty line are more likely to have cars in the US than in Europe. Square footage of homes for those below the poverty line is higher in the US than it is in Europe. In the US, air conditioning is considered a necessity, in Europe it is considered a luxury and the poor here have it, while the middle class in Europe do not.

Your argument is fallacious in that it simply redistributes the pie but does not address poverty. Using your logic, the lowest 2% in an incredibly rich system with cars, and food, and all their necessities provided, still are considered "destitute". Such a view in unacceptable in its falsehood to describe poverty.

My nephew made around 17K in Nebraska, covered rent, food, clothing, and a few trips..... I will look to his real life and disagree with your assumption.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Public transportation is much more available in Europe than in the US. So the necessity of owning a car(or cars) is much less.

Nearly all of Europe is much more temperate in climate than the US. New York City and Rome Italy are roughly on the same latitude. For example here in SoCal in summer it is normal to expect 100+ degree days. Such is a rarity in most of Europe. Air Conditioning is much less of a concern in Europe.

In comparing like to like the US ranks near to dead last in income distribution, and quality of life, and its length is shorter of any industrialized nation. Them's just the facts.

http://www.americablog.com/2010/10/us-drops-to-49th-in-world-for-life.html

[Jeff K.]

http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Poverty-and-Inequality

Poor persons in the United States have far higher living standards than the public imagines. Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

The major causes of child poverty in the United States in any year will be the absence of married fathers in the home and low levels of parental work.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.:

Public transportation is much more available in Europe than in the US. So the necessity of owning a car(or cars) is much less.

Nearly all of Europe is much more temperate in climate than the US. New York City and Rome Italy are roughly on the same latitude. For example here in SoCal in summer it is normal to expect 100+ degree days. Such is a rarity in most of Europe. Air Conditioning is much less of a concern in Europe.

In comparing like to like the US ranks near to dead last in income distribution, and quality of life, and its length is shorter of any industrialized nation. Them's just the facts.

http://www.americablog.com/2010/10/us-drops-to-49th-in-world-for-life.html

Then you don't know Europe very well, or rather you only know the Med Europe which makes up a small portion of Europe. Consider that five times more people died from a hot summer in France than from 9-11 in the US. And the summers are sweltering and uncomfortable while the winters are wet an cold in most of Europe.

You still cling to the falsehood of income distribution rather than real lifestyle. Quality of life questions are interesting, because they are often skewed by what that "quality" is and what "qualities" are shared or not. I have had this conversation before. I have yet to run into very few Europeans that would not rather have a car, air conditioning, a larger place to live. Unfortunately they cannot afford it.

When you compare Rome to New York you do NOT compare climates but latitudes. Rome has the Pyrannes most of Europe does not.

[Jeff K.]

In comparing like to like the US ranks near to dead last in income distribution, and quality of life, and its length is shorter of any industrialized nation. Them's just the facts.

It is the facts that bear some scrutiny. For instance, its a fact the US uses every death in the US in calculating its death rate and the average life span. Europe doesn't use accidents and discouts other factors, thus skewing their numbers. Sometimes you need to know what goes into the numbers, not simply the sums.

[Ahab]

I have yet to run into very few Europeans that would not rather have a car, air conditioning, a larger place to live. Unfortunately they cannot afford it.

... which is what makes me sick about this world we live in when I see the "rich" not sharing with the "poor" as they should.

Think of any apartment in any apartment building the poor in any country can "afford" to pay "rent" for, and then compare that to any house on any piece of land the rich in any country can "afford" to actually buy, instead of just paying "rent" on, and you should be able to see a huge chasm that exists simply because the rich are not sharing with the poor as they should.

... and you can forget about telling me how hard it is for the "rich" in any part of the world. Hard for the "rich" isn't "hard" at all.

[elguanteloko]

http://www.heritage....-and-Inequality

Poor persons in the United States have far higher living standards than the public imagines. Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

The major causes of child poverty in the United States in any year will be the absence of married fathers in the home and low levels of parental work.

So, why not give to the ones that REALLY need it to survive? Seems like you are the one wanting to bring politics here instead of attacking the arguments of others directly. Should a "good rich" buy a $30,000 piano or give that money to those that need it to barely survive?

[DH]

The word "rich" could be defined in different ways. You could say that to be rich means having more than you need. To me it's not so much a question of having more than you need, but of having more than you need while somebody else goes without what they need. That definition of "rich" implies that somebody else is "poor." If everybody is rich, I see no problem. But if some people are rich while others are poor, then there is a problem, and I think that's what Christ was talking about. Nobody is more important than anybody else, in God's eyes, and so we need to look out for each other.

[Deborah]

All of you who are rich should give to the poor until you all become middle class.

You have just illustrated why you are in no position to judge. Not all of us who are against government redistribution of wealth are rich by any means of measurement. We do understand however the inequality and injustice of others to determine how anyone should spend their incomes. It is between that person and God. I think it very arrogant for others to think they have the right to make such determinations.