Can A Rich Man Enter the Kingdom of God?

[Pahoran]

You should start your own prosperity ministry.

And while he's at it, what will you be doing? Starting your own "liberation theology" splinter group?

"Ubi Lenin, ibi Jerusalem."

The fact is that the Gospel is fundamentally incompatible with all manmade economic systems, and attempts to reconcile it with any of them will never succeed. The "prosperity gospel" is a mirage, and "liberation theology" is a dry hole.

In the meantime, has anyone else noticed that the thread originator seems to have abandoned his thread? Like Eris throwing the golden apple into the party when no-one was looking, perhaps he's just chuckling over the strife he's caused.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Ahab]

You have just illustrated why you are in no position to judge.

Poppycock. I have done no such thing.

I have simply said the rich should give to the poor, and they should, whether or not you think they should.

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.

Are you really saying that you don't think the rich should give to the poor?

If you really don't know what God expects from the rich, in regards to their monetary substance, just say so, Deborah.

I won't fault you for being ignorant, but I for one am not ignorant about the fact that God expects the rich to give to the poor, nor am I ignorant about the fact that God is very upset about the fact that they aren't doing that as they should, generally speaking.

If they were, we would have no more rich people, as well as no more poor people, and instead we would have a world where there is nothing but the "middle-class" and with all of us having all things in common.

It is between that person and God.

Just as sin is, too, but that doesn't mean we can't tell when people are sinning, or not sinning. All that is required is that you know what sin is, and then open your eyes.

I think it very arrogant for others to think they have the right to make such determinations.

I think it's very arrogant for others to think others aren't supposed to think and see what is really going on in this world.

The fact that people sin is no big secret to me, just as the fact that the rich don't give to the poor as they should is no big secret to me, either, and I have no problem at all with sharing what I know to be true.

[semlogo]

And while he's at it, what will you be doing? Starting your own "liberation theology" splinter group?

"Ubi Lenin, ibi Jerusalem."

The fact is that the Gospel is fundamentally incompatible with all manmade economic systems, and attempts to reconcile it with any of them will never succeed. The "prosperity gospel" is a mirage, and "liberation theology" is a dry hole.

In the meantime, has anyone else noticed that the thread originator seems to have abandoned his thread? Like Eris throwing the golden apple into the party when no-one was looking, perhaps he's just chuckling over the strife he's caused.

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm not advocating for any political system, merely advocating that we not throw the Savior's words under the bus in defense of one.

[Jeff K.]

... 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.

It isn't that the "rich" as you call them (and you are one of them) isn't sharing. The opportunities are indeed shared for all in many countries, especially the US. It is mostly that many choose not to take advantage of the oportunities. Do we begrudge Christ for not giving the plan of salvation to all? Of course not, yet the same reasoning applies. The opportunity to have access to the plan of salvation exists for all, and everyone has a right to partake if they so desire.

I personally do not take the covetous route. The route of saying "Look what they have and why can't I or someone else have it". That is the route of sin. I do not care to judge others by what they don't have, nor by what they do have since both are false and impure judgements. When I find myself thinking that way, I quickly repent of it.

I think upon my blessings, and I think upon what I must do to increase my talents. I leave the judging to those who would have followed the dictates of Judas and criticized marry (implying a criticism of Christ). I would not have worried about what Mary, or Christ did with the perfumed oil. The example is clear to me.

Being poor gives you no moral elevation, being rich is not a detriment towards being righteous. The Lord does not measure us by our wealth or lack there of. He is no respecter of persons in that way. Why some want Him to be is beyond my comprehension.

[Deborah]

If they were, we would have no more rich people, as well as no more poor people, and instead we would have a world where there is nothing but the "middle-class" and with all of us having all things in common.

You appear to believe the middle class is what all should strive for as if the middle class is some sacrosanct group. Even those in the middle class are expected to give of their surplus, as are those who may be deemed poor. There will be no rich nor poor but neither will there be any classes at all in a Zion society. The middle class is a product of political maneuvering, not a standard to arise to or to devolve to.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In the meantime, has anyone else noticed that the thread originator seems to have abandoned his thread? Like Eris throwing the golden apple into the party when no-one was looking, perhaps he's just chuckling over the strife he's caused.

Regards,

Pahoran

The sad thing about this, is that it seems lately that there has sort of been a class warfare going on on this board for about 4 or 5 months now. I have to confess that it is very tiresome. I have thought about joining others that have recently retired.

To some extent, I think that you might be right, that he is chuckling over the strife that is caused. In some regards it is quit funny. Again, though, it is sad that some of us have become so cought up on what other people should do with their stuff.

[Ahab]

It isn't that the "rich" as you call them (and you are one of them) isn't sharing.

The "rich", as I call them, are those who make an annual income of more than about $120,000, as per the government statistics the U.S. government came up with in 2009, and while the figures for 2010 may need to be adjusted a little, the figures our government provides is a pretty good representation of what it means to be rich, as well as poor and middle class.

And contrary to your opinion, I am not someone who is rich, by those standards, today, and if I were to ever become such in the future I would freely give away everything in excess of $120,000, and probably even more, so that some "poor" people wouldn't be poor anymore, even if that meant that I also wasn't "rich" anymore, as I once was.

The opportunities are indeed shared for all in many countries, especially the US. It is mostly that many choose not to take advantage of the oportunities. Do we begrudge Christ for not giving the plan of salvation to all? Of course not, yet the same reasoning applies. The opportunity to have access to the plan of salvation exists for all, and everyone has a right to partake if they so desire.

The resources of this planet exist for all, too, and yet there are class distinctions where the "rich" have more than the "poor" and the "middle" class, combined.

That's not fair, bro, and God did not intend it to be that way.

I personally do not take the covetous route.

The rich do, which is why they want more "stuff" than anyone else instead of having all things in common.

The route of saying "Look what they have and why can't I or someone else have it". That is the route of sin.

No, that's the natural result of anyone who opens their eyes to see that some people have more than some other people while realizing it shouldn't be that way.

You seem to look at those who are "rich" as if they have as much as they should have, while the poor and everyone else who have less than they do should have less, as if that's the way things are supposed to be. It's not though, even though you may think it is, and someday our Lord is going to come down here and take care of this mess to make things as they should be.

I do not care to judge others by what they don't have, nor by what they do have since both are false and impure judgements. When I find myself thinking that way, I quickly repent of it.

I judge people by what they do or don't do, and if or when I can see that people aren't doing as they should do, I know they need to repent.

I think upon my blessings, and I think upon what I must do to increase my talents.

While you're at it, try thinking upon what it takes to develop some more charity in your own heart, and then act accordingly.

I leave the judging to those who would have followed the dictates of Judas and criticized marry (implying a criticism of Christ). I would not have worried about what Mary, or Christ did with the perfumed oil. The example is clear to me.

I'd be interested in hearing what lesson you think our Lord was teaching by allowing Mary to use that oil on him.

I'm not so sure that you glean the same lesson I glean.

Being poor gives you no moral elevation, being rich is not a detriment towards being righteous. The Lord does not measure us by our wealth or lack there of. He is no respecter of persons in that way. Why some want Him to be is beyond my comprehension.

Our Lord measures us all by how we use the resources we have to work with, and the rich man who thinks he is "entitled" to more of this world's goods than his poor brother or sister needs to develop some more charity while learning to love his neighbor as he loves his own self.

[Ahab]

You appear to believe the middle class is what all should strive for as if the middle class is some sacrosanct group. Even those in the middle class are expected to give of their surplus, as are those who may be deemed poor. There will be no rich nor poor but neither will there be any classes at all in a Zion society. The middle class is a product of political maneuvering, not a standard to arise to or to devolve to.

It's all about charity, and sharing, and esteeming each of our brothers and sisters as we esteem our own self, Deborah.

The "rich" who have more than the poor don't "deserve" more than their poor brothers or sisters, and if or when the rich have true charity, they give to those who have less than they do while striving for equality, just as they should.

[Jeff K.]

The "rich", as I call them, are those who make an annual income of more than about $120,000, as per the government statistics the U.S. government came up with in 2009, and while the figures for 2010 may need to be adjusted a little, the figures our government provides is a pretty good representation of what it means to be rich, as well as poor and middle class.

That is like saying "everybody but me". Sorry it doesn't work that way. You are the rich relative to many. To say the cut off is 120K is more reflective of you missing the point to avoid responsibility than understanding poverty. You are, relative to most poor, rich. I don't let the government define who is in need and who isn't. Its usually filled with political hubris and has no real meaning in the world of needs. Compared to people in Africa, you are extremely rich. My question, given the way you feel about it, is why a rich person like you hasn't hepled people in Africa, why you aren't putting more effort in alleviating the horrible poverty in that continent. You have tons of money compared to them. You probably have a car, a descent home, and I don't doubt you eat more than you should. Meanwhile people in Africa live on a subsistence level that breaks the heart. And here you are, a rich man, who obviously is blind to their needs since you only concern yourself with those in your country. Aren't you your brothers keeper? Why don't you part with you goods until Africa is at least on par with US poverty rates. Or are your words empty? Do you even care?

You are rich alright. Very rich compared to most Africans.

Think about it next time you see a splinter in someone elses eye.

[Deborah]

The sad thing about this, is that it seems lately that there has sort of been a class warfare going on on this board for about 4 or 5 months now. I have to confess that it is very tiresome. I have thought about joining others that have recently retired.

And along with this is the idea that being poor is somehow superior and entitles one to greater blessings without any other effort. This doesn't make much sense when so many of God's prophets and people were blessed with prosperity.

[Analytics]

And while he's at it, what will you be doing? Starting your own "liberation theology" splinter group?

"Ubi Lenin, ibi Jerusalem."

The fact is that the Gospel is fundamentally incompatible with all manmade economic systems, and attempts to reconcile it with any of them will never succeed. The "prosperity gospel" is a mirage, and "liberation theology" is a dry hole.

In the meantime, has anyone else noticed that the thread originator seems to have abandoned his thread? Like Eris throwing the golden apple into the party when no-one was looking, perhaps he's just chuckling over the strife he's caused.

Regards,

Pahoran

Strife? I prefer to call it contention.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

I personally do not take the covetous route.

The rich do, which is why they want more "stuff" than anyone else instead of having all things in common.

Actually your entire diatribe is about home much "other" people have, while excluding your own wealth. That is the very definition of covetous.

Quote

The route of saying "Look what they have and why can't I or someone else have it". That is the route of sin.

No, that's the natural result of anyone who opens their eyes to see that some people have more than some other people while realizing it shouldn't be that way.

You seem to look at those who are "rich" as if they have as much as they should have, while the poor and everyone else who have less than they do should have less, as if that's the way things are supposed to be. It's not though, even though you may think it is, and someday our Lord is going to come down here and take care of this mess to make things as they should be.

The natural result for the natural man who wants more or chooses to condemn others. I was poor and I never asked why the rich had more. And believe me, I was very poor. So "natural result" is really little more than a reflection of the natural man. When I was in the depth of poverty, my reaction was more along the lines of thanking the Lord for what blessings I had and seeking his guidance in my life. The results were that I was better off. The Lord blessed me. And in turn I and my family have blessed others. But I never ever looked to the wealth of others for my own well being. That is the sin of coveting.

Quote

I leave the judging to those who would have followed the dictates of Judas and criticized marry (implying a criticism of Christ). I would not have worried about what Mary, or Christ did with the perfumed oil. The example is clear to me.

I'd be interested in hearing what lesson you think our Lord was teaching by allowing Mary to use that oil on him.

I'm not so sure that you glean the same lesson I glean.

I take a less covetous approach. I reject Judas and His stance and logic that every asset must go for the poor rather than for other things. Your view tends to be one of class warfare, though Christ never hinted or spoke of it, you seek to subsume his doctrine to your politics. I disagree with actions in doing so. It demeans the doctrine.

Quote

Being poor gives you no moral elevation, being rich is not a detriment towards being righteous. The Lord does not measure us by our wealth or lack there of. He is no respecter of persons in that way. Why some want Him to be is beyond my comprehension.

Our Lord measures us all by how we use the resources we have to work with, and the rich man who thinks he is "entitled" to more of this world's goods than his poor brother or sister needs to develop some more charity while learning to love his neighbor as he loves his own self.

I can give my money to the poor until I am equally poor. Or I can create jobs and wealth and do much more for the poor. Hmmm...... You bury your talent, I will allow mine to multiply. And how dare the servant not give away at least half his talent eh? I mean really, the servant should have buried half his talent and given the other half away in order to meet your somewhat unique requirements.

I don't think the Lord wants us to do that. But you go ahead and condemn away. Meanwhile I will try and create jobs, and put other people in a better position in life. I wonder which one of us will be deemed more useful to the betterment of mankind. The man who covets and condemns or the one who doesn't care about other people's wealth and simply attempts to invest and increase the talents?

The servant who buried his talent and did not invest it, make it grow, obviously is the more favored by you. The servant who did more with his talent so that when the Lord called upon him, he could provide more for his Lord, was obviously the more praiseworthy.

[USU78]

The rich [take the covetous route], which is why they want more "stuff" than anyone else instead of having all things in common.

You know this for a fact, eh?

[Ahab]

That is like saying "everybody but me". Sorry it doesn't work that way.

There are people who are really "rich" in terms of this world's resources, and then there are people like me who are considered to be middle-class, and then there are the really poor people.

I'm in the middle, Jeff K. instead of being classed among the rich or the poor, although a poor person may think I am rich when compared to how poor they are.

You are the rich relative to many.

I am also poor relative to many, but to get technical about it, according to U.S. statistics, I am "middle-class", instead of being either "rich" or "poor".

To say the cut off is 120K is more reflective of you missing to avoid responsibility than understanding poverty.

Hey! As a middle-class person, I still give, and if I was poor, I would still give something, too, but the people who really need to give are those who are rich, since they've got more than anyone else, and the poor people should be receiving from them instead of giving to them.

You are, relative to most poor, rich.

I'm not rich, though, monetarily speaking, or in terms of this world's resources. The "rich" people are the ones who are rich, and I am what is called "middle class".

I don't let the government define who is in need and who isn't.

They still do, though, even if you do not let them.

Its usually filled with political hubris and has no real meaning in the world of needs.

Balogna. The numbers actually do reflect something real in regards to the actual wealth or poverty of all people, just as much as any other indicator of wealth or poverty does.

For example, if you know the annual income for a family of 4 is $16,600 or less, and if you also know something about the resources that are available on this planet, you can automatically conclude that a family of 4 with $16,600 or less in annual income is not able to enjoy very much in terms of this world's resources unless somebody gives them some more help. It's just not possible to enjoy very much with only that much money, considering the fact that it takes money to be able to access this world's resources. Thus, their quality of life is very "poor" compared to people who have more money to work with.

In contrast, compare a family of 4 with an annual income of $120,000 and see how much more they are able to enjoy, because they have more money.

Clearly that isn't fair, and it could be.

Compared to people in Africa, you are extremely rich.

There are rich people in Africa, too, Jeff... with an annual income of more than $120,000... and compared to them, I am extremely poor.

My question, given the way you feel about it, is why a rich person like you hasn't hepled people in Africa, why you aren't putting more effort in alleviating the horrible poverty in that country.

I have, but people who are really rich, instead of middle-class like me, are the ones who really should help the most because they have more to give.

You have tons of money compared to them.

Compared to the extremely poor, yes, I am somewhat rich, even though I don't make it on the list of the truly "rich" because I don't make that much money.

You probably have a car, a descent home, and I don't doubt you eat more than you should. Meanwhile people in Africa live on a subsistence level that breaks the heart. And here you are, a rich man, who obviously is blind to their needs since you only concern yourself with those in your country. Aren't you your brothers keeper? Why don't you part with you goods until Africa is at least on par with US poverty rates. Or are your words empty? Do you even care?

For someone who makes as little money as I do, compared to the truly rich, I'm probably more generous than I really should be because I sometimes give so much that I actually put myself in even more debt than I already am. Do you hear that, Jeff? I'm actually in debt, rather than being rich enough to pay cash for everything I "purchase" while still having a ton of money in my bank account(s) and in investments like the truly rich do.

You are rich alright. Very rich compared to most Africans.

How do you call someone who is actually in debt "rich", Jeff?

Think about it next time you see a splinter in someone elses eye.

... and all of this because I simply advocate the idea that those who are truly "rich" should give to those who are "poor".

Get a clue.

[Ahab]

You know this for a fact, eh?

Yes, I do.

[Ahab]

Actually your entire diatribe is about home much "other" people have, while excluding your own wealth.

I'm focusing on the "rich" because those are the people who have most of this world's resources.

I do have some "riches", but I am not rich, according to how the world generally defines those who truly are "rich".

In spiritual blessings I am rich, but in terms of this world's resources, at this moment, I am relatively poor and technically "middle-class".

That is the very definition of covetous.

To "covet" is to have a burning desire for something that now belongs to someone else, and what I really want most is a world filled with people who have and act based upon charity they have for other people which would give them a burning desire to want to help all other people by treating them as their equals.

There's nothing wrong with that, Jeff, and I'm disappointed that you do not feel the same way.

[USU78]

Yes, I do.

CFR

USU "Good luck demonstrating that every single "rich" person, per Ahab's definition, is covetous: the assertion is ridiculous" 78

[zerinus]

It's all about charity, and sharing, and esteeming each of our brothers and sisters as we esteem our own self, Deborah.

The "rich" who have more than the poor don't "deserve" more than their poor brothers or sisters, and if or when the rich have true charity, they give to those who have less than they do while striving for equality, just as they should.

The scriptures provide several examples of righteous people who were very rich, such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Job. Now I am sure those people were generous with their wealth towards the poor and the needy, but I don

[Ahab]

CFR

USU "Good luck demonstrating that every single "rich" person, per Ahab's definition, is covetous: the assertion is ridiculous" 78

I didn't say every single one of them, but if you'll look at how the rich, generally, become rich, you'll see they don't get that way by giving things away for free.

So, take that, along with the definition of what it means to be covetous.

[USU78]

I didn't say every single one of them, but if you'll look at how the rich, generally, become rich, you'll see they don't get that way by giving things away for free.

So, take that, along with the definition of what it means to be covetous.

Ahab's judgmental dismissal of every person of means, at least "generally," and all their eleemosynary activities, is astonishing in its arrogance and profound in its ignorance.

A brief peek: http://philanthropy.com/stats/topdonors/

Fact is, Ahab doesn't know a d@mn thing about the generosity of "the rich." Ahab may be educable, however. Let us hope so.

[Ahab]

Ahab's judgmental dismissal of every person of means, at least "generally," and all their eleemosynary activities, is astonishing in its arrogance and profound in its ignorance.

A brief peek: http://philanthropy....tats/topdonors/

While all of that "giving" is going on, the rich still retain most of the wealth in this world BY FAR and there are still a LOT of people who are VERY POOR in this world.

Why do YOU think there is such an unequal distribution of this world's resources ???

Fact is, Ahab doesn't know a d@mn thing about the generosity of "the rich." Ahab may be educable, however. Let us hope so.

I'll put it this way:

The "rich" have more than ALL of the "poor" and ALL of the "middle-class", COMBINED, and if you think that is fair, fair doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does to me.

You may now proceed to try to educate me on exactly HOW that is fair and WHY that is the way things should be on this planet we all live on, together.

Knock yourself out.

[Ahab]

The scriptures provide several examples of righteous people who were very rich, such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Job. Now I am sure those people were generous with their wealth towards the poor and the needy, but I don

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

While all of that "giving" is going on, the rich still retain most of the wealth in this world BY FAR and there are still a LOT of people who are VERY POOR in this world.

Why do YOU think there is such an unequal distribution of this world's resources ???

I'll put it this way:

The "rich" have more than ALL of the "poor" and ALL of the "middle-class", COMBINED, and if you think that is fair, fair doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does to me.

You may now proceed to try to educate me on exactly HOW that is fair and WHY that is the way things should be on this planet we all live on, together.

Knock yourself out.

Who said life is fair?

[Ahab]

Who said life is fair?

Who says everybody can't have all things equally in common with everyone else, with no rich or poor among us?

In truth, we can, and if all of the "rich" people would just share what they have with all others, as they should, we would.

[zerinus]

According to today's figures, any family of 4 in the U.S. with an annual income of $120,000 or more in a year is considered to be rich, and they will continue to be rich for as long as they continue to make that much money per year. In other words, what they do with their money doesn't make them less rich, because they're still making that much money per year, if they make that, so even if they gave it all away they would still be considered rich because they would still be making that much money per year with it being up to them to decide how to use their resources.

In the days of Abraham and those other people you mentioned, it probably had more to do with how much land and animals and plants and miscellaneous food and water resources they had to use, along with people who were willing to work both for them and with them also contributing to whether or not they were considered to be "rich", so as long as they had those resources for their use every year, however much that was, they would still be considered to be "rich" as long as they continued to have all of those "things" (including the labor of others) among their resources.

Giving all your money away, or to the Church, may be a valid proposition if we are living under the law of consecration, because then everyone would then be doing the same, and everyone would be operating under the same arrangement. But under the present arrangement, I don't think that is what God is requiring people to do. Being a "wise steward" under the present economic arrangement may necessitate actually saving some of your money, or investing it wisely, and prepare for a rainy day, and for other foreseen or unforeseen eventualities (e.g. your children's education, your daughters' marriage, your own old age, leaving a decent inheritance for your wife and kids etc.), while at the same time being generous towards the Church, the poor, and the needy. A "wise steward" seeks to increase his capital, while at the same time being generous towards those in need. That is what the idea of "wise stewardship" in Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-27 entails. I agree that that parable was used as a metaphor for spiritual things, but I think it has its application temporally as well.

If I had a billion dollars of spare cash in excess of my needs, and wanted to be charitable with it, there two ways that I could do it. One way would be to stand on the street corner with a pile of cash, and just give it away to all the poor people that passed by until it was all gone. Another way would be to put it in a (tax free!) managed fund, plow back into it some of the interest earned so that the capital would continue to increase rather than decrease because of inflation etc., and give the rest of the interest earned on the money to charitable causes. That way it would last forever and might even increase, and achieve greater good in the long run. I think the latter course of action would win me bigger plaudits as a "wise steward" than the former.