[goMac]

Apparently a growing fad in Chrisitianity is the belief that God wants his followers to be wealthy. Is it just me, or are a lot of Christians really growing away from the messages of their own religion?

TIME.com: Does God Want You to Be Rich? A Holy Controversy -- Sep. 18, 2006 -- Page 1

Edit: Sorry about the ad, can't find a way around it.

Here is the related CNN article:
CNN.com - Does God want you to be rich? - Sep 10, 2006

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by goMac

Apparently a growing fad in Chrisitianity is the belief that God wants his followers to be wealthy. Is it just me, or are a lot of Christians really growing away from the messages of their own religion?

Depends, the article mentioned several books and sermons used to supposedly spread the message that God wants you to be rich. Have you read the books? Have you listened to the sermons? It's not a growing issue or even a fad. There is an understanding that God does not need you to be poor, not that he wants you to be rich. The messages are on personal growth. Personal growth and confidence in who you are and in who Christ is in you can often manifest in a healthier, more productive fiscal position. Almost invariably, the message has been that you have these blessings not for your own gain, but for the benefit of others. The question is, do Christians live this message? Maybe not as well as they could, but statistically better than most;

Religious observers donate two-thirds of all charitable dollars in the United States. Religious observers (those who attend weekly services) donate 3.4 percent of income annually, while nonreligious people give 1.1 percent to 1.4 percent.

I've not attended a Church that didn't provide some type of food pantry, missions work abroad, and care for the sick, the elderly, and the youth.

Is a wealthy Christian a sinner and is wealth contrary to Christ's teaching? For the non-believer, the hypocrite, and the Christianaphobe maybe. I say, only if it consumes his life and assumes the lion's-share of his affections and his attention and if he does not use the blessing of affluence to benefit another.

The "movement message" I've seen is not; does God want you to be rich? Truth be told, Americans already are. The question I've seen posed is; Does God need you to be poor? Are you a sinner by virtue of your bank account? The answer to both is no. Whether or not you are a good steward of your blessings however, is critical.

[ironknee]

be rich-->give more to the church-->bingo!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well, this is nothing new. The Lutheran or Calvinist (can't remember which) Protestant movement was largely based from middle-class Christians who were increasingly wealthy (merchants, etc.) and liked to have a "reason" or validation for their increased wealth.

But that's all I remember from that particular history class.

greg

[Dr Reducto]

The two biggest sins in the Church of Liberalism. Being rich, and being Christian. Uh-oh

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Is a wealthy Christian a sinner and is wealth contrary to Christ's teaching?

I don't think there's any doubt about it. It's one of Jesus' most clear and consistent messages, and anyone who has read even a little of what he's said should know that, or perhaps be in denial about it.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I don't think there's any doubt about it. It's one of Jesus' most clear and consistent messages, and anyone who has read even a little of what he's said should know that, or perhaps be in denial about it.

Jesus never said anything about possessing wealth being a sin. He did, however, have two important things to say about wealth, and he did repeat these constantly.

• God has no use for wealth: being rich does not make one a better person.
• Wealth, like just about any other positive circumstance, has a way of causing people to lose sight of God.

Being wealthy is not a sin. It's not an escape from sin, and although it might be considered a blessing, like most blessings it can be dangerous. People don't often turn to God when things are going well. This is the root of Jesus' saying about the rich man passing through the eye of the needle: it's easy for wealth to lead a person off of the path.

Does that make it a sin? No more than it makes, for example, dancing a sin. But it does mean that a wealthy person has to be particularly careful not to lose sight of the truly valuable things, and those have nothing to do with his money.

This "Prosperity" movement, however, is complete BS. It is true that God wants people to be happy, but wealth doesn't make people happy. Trying to tie wealth to happiness is nothing more than a false path, and thus these pseudo-Christian "megapastors" are little more than false prophets.

[BRussell]

I disagree millennium, in the gospels Jesus is very direct about saying that wealth prohibits one from entering the Kingdom of God, and that his followers must give it all up. He didn't say it was just another positive life circumstance, like dancing - he singled out wealth directly and repeatedly, with statements like the camel/eye one.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Jesus

And again I say unto you, 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 God (Mat. 19:24)

Now, even allowing for the fact that "camel" was a mistranslation by Martin Luther (the Hebrew lettering is the same for the word meaning "thick rope"), that's pretty direct.

It does not, however, outright say it's impossible. Just very, very unlikely.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I disagree millennium, in the gospels Jesus is very direct about saying that wealth prohibits one from entering the Kingdom of God, and that his followers must give it all up.

He said that it was very hard, but he did not say it was impossible.

Besides, think about what this means for a second: if wealth can actually prohibit something from entering the kingdom of God, that makes wealth an unforgivable sin. From a god who makes a big deal about forgiveness, how much sense does it make for wealth, of all things, to be unforgivable? We can bicker back and forth about moral equivalence, but somehow I don't think most people, even among the most zealous ascetics, would place wealth that high on the list.

He didn't say it was just another positive life circumstance, like dancing - he singled out wealth directly and repeatedly, with statements like the camel/eye one.

Indeed he did single it out repeatedly. And why not; his chief opponents during his ministry were hyopcrites who preached doctrines much like the ones that this "Prosperity" movement preaches. But he never called wealth a sin. Some of his major followers (including one by the name of Matthew that you may have heard of ) were quite rich, and likely provided the funds that allowed him to carry out his ministry. They were sinners just like the rest of his followers, no better and no worse.

[Face Ache]

You can lead a perfect life and still end up nailed to a tree with a crowd cheering.

[ink]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Religious observers donate two-thirds of all charitable dollars in the United States. Religious observers (those who attend weekly services) donate 3.4 percent of income annually, while nonreligious people give 1.1 percent to 1.4 percent.

Does that include tithing as a charitable contribution? A good chunk of tithing/offering money does not go towards any chairty, but into resources (buildings, maintenance, energy, staffing, etc.) for the burocratic needs of the church. The LDS church, for example, had about $30 Billion in assets (1996). In America, churches are not required to disclose any sort of financial information so it's easy to confuse which money is used for a particular purpose (and easy to hide money/salaries). Mormons are required to pay 10% of their income (devout members use gross), and then one gives fast offerings, which are purely charitable. You get to add the two together for tax purposes at the end of the year though (charitable contributions).

As an example of how confusing it gets: The LDS church recently bought 2 large malls in downtown Salt Lake, and is going to spend over two billion dollars to rennovate them. They say that none of the monies used in this process are from tithing, but rather gains (real estate, stock, etc.) on tithing. So, is it really charitable to give money to the church, so that they can turn around and buy real estate, then sell it in order to remodel a shopping mall?

I'm sure some churches are more charitable than others, but don't pat yourselves on the back for being such generous folk overall.

[Kerrigan]

I always wondered about why a camel would go through a needle ...

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by Face Ache

You can lead a perfect life and still end up nailed to a tree with a crowd cheering.

At least you'd be popular.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Indeed he did single it out repeatedly. And why not; his chief opponents during his ministry were hyopcrites who preached doctrines much like the ones that this "Prosperity" movement preaches. But he never called wealth a sin.

This seems like splitting hairs. What is the effective difference between "Wealth is a sin" and "It's impossible for a rich man to go to heaven"?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally Posted by Millennium

He said that it was very hard, but he did not say it was impossible.

Besides, think about what this means for a second: if wealth can actually prohibit something from entering the kingdom of God, that makes wealth an unforgivable sin. From a god who makes a big deal about forgiveness, how much sense does it make for wealth, of all things, to be unforgivable? We can bicker back and forth about moral equivalence, but somehow I don't think most people, even among the most zealous ascetics, would place wealth that high on the list.

Indeed he did single it out repeatedly. And why not; his chief opponents during his ministry were hyopcrites who preached doctrines much like the ones that this "Prosperity" movement preaches. But he never called wealth a sin. Some of his major followers (including one by the name of Matthew that you may have heard of ) were quite rich, and likely provided the funds that allowed him to carry out his ministry. They were sinners just like the rest of his followers, no better and no worse.

False argument there, Mill. Any sin unrepented will keep you out of heaven. Forgiveness isn't for free - you have to renounce your old ways and make good faith attempts change them (and an all knowing God will know if the attempt is in good faith). Repenting wealth is easy enough - give it away. Given the ease of repenting wealth compared to giving up sins that are habitual, I have no trouble seeing God saying, "If you can't give up the excess money, you can't get through the door."

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Besides, think about what this means for a second: if wealth can actually prohibit something from entering the kingdom of God, that makes wealth an unforgivable sin. From a god who makes a big deal about forgiveness, how much sense does it make for wealth, of all things, to be unforgivable? We can bicker back and forth about moral equivalence, but somehow I don't think most people, even among the most zealous ascetics, would place wealth that high on the list.

I may be wrong about this, but my understanding is that the 'sin' of wealth is 'forgiven' by sharing that wealth with others. I believe the idea being that "You cannot serve both God and money."

Indeed he did single it out repeatedly. And why not; his chief opponents during his ministry were hyopcrites who preached doctrines much like the ones that this "Prosperity" movement preaches. But he never called wealth a sin. Some of his major followers (including one by the name of Matthew that you may have heard of ) were quite rich, and likely provided the funds that allowed him to carry out his ministry. They were sinners just like the rest of his followers, no better and no worse.

Not sure that Matthew (the Apostle) was rich, but Jesus' followers included many sinners of other varieties.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

This seems like splitting hairs. What is the effective difference between "Wealth is a sin" and "It's impossible for a rich man to go to heaven"?

There's little difference, but Jesus never preached that it was impossible, making the point moot.

[Kr0nos]

Funny, I didn't expect this to reaveal itself for another 4 years or so.

But very well, truth out.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Millennium

There's little difference, but Jesus never preached that it was impossible, making the point moot.

Well, do get back to us when you've actually threaded a thick rope through the eye of a needle.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I disagree millennium, in the gospels Jesus is very direct about saying that wealth prohibits one from entering the Kingdom of God, and that his followers must give it all up.

1) Jesus was never very direct about anything.

2) Jesus was testing the rich man when He asked him to give up his wealth in much the same way that Abraham was tested in sacrificing Isaac. Wealth is not a problem in itself. Wealth acting as your god is.

3) "Ask and it will be given". Not "ask and it will be given, except cash".

4) God wants everyone to be rich. As opposed to those atheist commie-types who misinterpret the eye of the needle passage constantly and actually want everyone to be equally poor. I've had this argument many, many times before.

5) Why would God want everyone to be poor? God wants bums on seats. Is He likely to achieve that through demanding that His followers have a miserable time? God knows that money is required to live in the modern world.

Strangely, I was reading about this very movement late last night (completely independently of anything else - just followed a few Wiki links, you know how it goes).
Word of Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conclusion: Valid message, but dangerous, since it eventually veers into avenues which the average man is not supposed to go down.

[ebuddy]

Again; has anyone read the books or heard the sermons on wealth? It is generally very disciplined and geared towards being good stewards of that wealth, not how to become rich.

Do you love money? Does it consume you? When asked how much you'd need to be happy (as was asked of Donald Trump for example) and your answer is; "just a little more." Then, you might have reason for concern. Also, what is rich? $45k a year? $75k a year? $110k a year? $210k a year? $6million a year? $2 billion a year? Anyone care to quantify the number? I'm also going to need a gauge of wealth. Our country's poor are among the wealthiest by International standards. Does this mean the entire US is spiritually doomed? I doubt it. I believe America is a very blessed nation, but a nation that has not always been good stewards of its wealth.

1 Timothy 6:10; For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Deeds do not earn a ticket to heaven. You can be poor and sinful. You can be rich and sinful. You can be rich, give all your money to the poor and still be sinful.

Solomon's temple was not built with fool's gold and polyester. Do you trust in God or in yourself? Do you trust in God's provisions (which can be represented by money) or your own?

[mac128k-1984]

This is hardly a new movement but just the latest twist in the health and wealth gospel. People judge their faith by how fat their wallet is. I do find it ironic that the worlds richest nations purport this idea but in the poor thirdworld nations where there are very devout christian it hasn't taken hold. Is it because they have less faith then American Christians?

What about our Chrisitan forefahters, like the apostles. They were not rich by human standards far from it.

About the argument does God want everyone poor of course not. What he wants and there's scripture to back this up, is for us to lay up treasurer that will be permenant in heaven. While God certainly can bless Christians with material wealth he calls us not focus in gaining the world at the expense of our souls. To often too many Chrisitans lose focus on what's important (Jesus Christ) and instead work towards making more money, buying more things etc.

My view is that Americans are too caught up in materialism and even so much so try to justify it by saying that God wants us to be happy and prosperious. of course our definition of prosperious and his may be different.

[Taliesin]

I think it's important to quote the passage containing the sentence discussed here in its context:

Matthew 19:

The Rich Young Man
16And behold, a man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" 17And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." 18He said to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 20The young man said to him, "All these I have kept. What do I still lack?" 21Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." 22When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.



23And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." 25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" 26But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." 27Then Peter said in reply, "See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?" 28Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world,[b] when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold[c] and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and the last first.

Taliesin

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Also, what is rich? $45k a year? $75k a year? $110k a year? $210k a year? $6million a year? $2 billion a year? Anyone care to quantify the number?

"Rich" is when you no longer use the "a year" bit.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

This is hardly a new movement but just the latest twist in the health and wealth gospel. People judge their faith by how fat their wallet is. I do find it ironic that the worlds richest nations purport this idea but in the poor thirdworld nations where there are very devout christian it hasn't taken hold. Is it because they have less faith then American Christians?

What about our Chrisitan forefahters, like the apostles. They were not rich by human standards far from it.

About the argument does God want everyone poor of course not. What he wants and there's scripture to back this up, is for us to lay up treasurer that will be permenant in heaven. While God certainly can bless Christians with material wealth he calls us not focus in gaining the world at the expense of our souls. To often too many Chrisitans lose focus on what's important (Jesus Christ) and instead work towards making more money, buying more things etc.

My view is that Americans are too caught up in materialism and even so much so try to justify it by saying that God wants us to be happy and prosperious. of course our definition of prosperious and his may be different.

Having several Macs may constitute wealth by most standards. Having Macs in your auto-sig as opposed to Scripture may be indicative of material focus as well. You're obviously American!

I'm just sayin'.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I disagree millennium, in the gospels Jesus is very direct about saying that wealth prohibits one from entering the Kingdom of God, and that his followers must give it all up. He didn't say it was just another positive life circumstance, like dancing - he singled out wealth directly and repeatedly, with statements like the camel/eye one.

This has been severely misinterpreted for centuries.

"And again I say unto you, 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 God." - Matthew 19:24

The "eye of a needle" is reference to the posturn (or small) gate of the city, and the owner had to hobble his camels so that they could pass. They literally had to enter on their knees. This was difficult, but people did it every day. It was commonly refered to as "threading the needle".

So, in other words, if a wealthy man remembers to humble himself, and pays particular attention to his excesses, he may be saved like any other. What better way for the rich to see their place than on thier own knees before God?

That is the message.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

This has been severely misinterpreted for centuries.

"And again I say unto you, 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 God." - Matthew 19:24

The "eye of a needle" is reference to the posturn (or small) gate of the city, and the owner had to hobble his camels so that they could pass. They literally had to enter on their knees. This was difficult, but people did it every day. It was commonly refered to as "threading the needle".

So, in other words, if a wealthy man remembers to humble himself, and pays particular attention to his excesses, he may be saved like any other. What better way for the rich to see their place than on thier own knees before God?

That is the message.

[goMac]

But is saying God wants you to be as rich as possible really all that humble?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Millennium

There's little difference, but Jesus never preached that it was impossible, making the point moot.

He said it was harder than a camel going through the eye of a needle. A camel cannot go through the eye of a needle. Ergo, impossible, yes?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by analogika

Well, do get back to us when you've actually threaded a thick rope through the eye of a needle.

Quite possible, actually. Want to know how it's done?

It's actually fairly simple. You unbraid the rope, join the strands, and pass them through. Rebraiding the rope on the other side is optional.

It's unconventional, to be sure, and difficult besides. So much so, in fact, that most people wouldn't even think of it, and even among those that do, some would say you haven't actually passed a rope through the eye of the needle at all. But if all of this is the case, then what better metaphor could one use?

We're all in agreement that wealth has a nasty tendency to turn people's minds away from God and onto their money. That's the nature of wealth: it takes effort to get it, and it takes effort to hold onto it, and the more wealth involved the more effort involved. It's very easy to get preoccupied with this, and that is what makes wealth so dangerous: it's easy to become what the Bible calls a "slave to Mammon," where you've become consumed with the task of acquiring or keeping the stuff. Ultimately that task is out of necessity self-centered, and this is how it separates you from God.

But does that make possessing wealth a sin? This seems to be the point of disagreement between us. My argument is that the threat of Mammon makes wealth a sin no more than the threat of alcoholism makes drinking wine a sin. Both of these things can easily make us their slaves, and such a state is certainly sinful. But Jesus himself drank wine on occasion; in fact, his first recorded miracle involved turning water into wine. Similarly, Jesus was by no means destitute; we do not have details on how much wealth he possessed, but we do know it was enough for him and his group to need a money box and a treasurer. This is not a very precise lower bound, but it was a lower bound nonetheless: Jesus preached concern for the poor, but he was not a poor man himself. Exactly how this affects his credibility is a matter of debate: one could make powerful arguments either way.

To be a slave to wealth is to sin. We all agree on this. But is possessing wealth the same as being a slave to it? I don't think so.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Millennium

We're all in agreement that wealth has a nasty tendency to turn people's minds away from God and onto their money.

Poverty also has the same effect.

Originally Posted by Millennium

That's the nature of wealth: it takes effort to get it, and it takes effort to hold onto it, and the more wealth involved the more effort involved.

That's not strictly true. Once you get past a certain point it's reasonably easy to maintain your wealth - provided you don't turn into Elton John/Michael Jackson and buy loads of useless junk every time you go to the mall.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

The "eye of a needle" is reference to the posturn (or small) gate of the city, and the owner had to hobble his camels so that they could pass. They literally had to enter on their knees. This was difficult, but people did it every day. It was commonly refered to as "threading the needle".

I've heard this explanation before too, but then I've read some scholars dispute it. Nothing is simple when it comes to religion I guess

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

This has been severely misinterpreted for centuries.

"And again I say unto you, 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 God." - Matthew 19:24

The "eye of a needle" is reference to the posturn (or small) gate of the city, and the owner had to hobble his camels so that they could pass. They literally had to enter on their knees. This was difficult, but people did it every day. It was commonly refered to as "threading the needle".

So, in other words, if a wealthy man remembers to humble himself, and pays particular attention to his excesses, he may be saved like any other. What better way for the rich to see their place than on thier own knees before God?

That is the message.

Do you have a credible reference that such a gate existed? I have seen this explanation many times, but never with anything other than hope behind it.

[RAILhead]

Spare me.

Money is just a thing. Some people are nuts over it, and it runs their life -- just like sports, women, fast cars, etc. Having "things" is neutral -- it's all about how important those things are to you.

God's opinion on money is pretty much the same as with other things: have no other gods before me. But since money is one of the things that tends to make people nuts, He cautions that those that love money are extra susceptible to becoming enamored by it.

So, basically, if you're money-worshipping git, it's going to be hard for you to allow anything else to be your life-leader.

[RAILhead]

RE: what "wealth" is, I define someone as being wealthy when their money is making more money than they are.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Poverty also has the same effect.

True indeed, but I don't think anyone here would argue that being poor is a sin.

Then again, it's also true that while poverty can do this, it doesn't seem to have quite the same effect as wealth does. We've seen this in many faiths, not just Christianity: the poor often turn to spirituality for comfort and aid, while the rich become more and more worldly. Perhaps the unfulfilled desire is what keeps the poor from falling into that trap: the rich feel that they have no need for comfort or aid, and so then what else is God really good for?

That's not strictly true. Once you get past a certain point it's reasonably easy to maintain your wealth - provided you don't turn into Elton John/Michael Jackson and buy loads of useless junk every time you go to the mall.

Or provided that by that time you haven't been consumed by the idea of continuing to get more. That is the trap that slaves to Mammon fall into. You're right that once you get past a certain point -one lower than many realize- holding onto wealth is no longer all that difficult. But holding onto your wealth is all you will do, as long as you take the easy routes: it won't grow at any significant rate. By that point, of course, you have what you need anyway, but for someone who's been consumed that isn't enough.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

This has been severely misinterpreted for centuries.

"And again I say unto you, 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 God." - Matthew 19:24

The "eye of a needle" is reference to the posturn (or small) gate of the city, and the owner had to hobble his camels so that they could pass. They literally had to enter on their knees. This was difficult, but people did it every day. It was commonly refered to as "threading the needle".

So, in other words, if a wealthy man remembers to humble himself, and pays particular attention to his excesses, he may be saved like any other. What better way for the rich to see their place than on thier own knees before God?

That is the message.

My impression is that most scholars don't buy that. I do believe, as analogika mentioned, that it was referring to a rope rather than a camel. Besides, there are many other references to Jesus discussing wealth and poverty that make the same point - poor people will enter God's Kingdom, and rich people won't. It can be debated whether he said that it's theoretically possible for a righteous wealthy person to be saved or if it's just practically impossible, but the message is very clear: If you want to follow Jesus, give your stuff away and live in poverty.

As with what he said about divorce, modern Christians are truly in denial about what Jesus said about wealth and poverty, and engage in all kinds of twisting to get around the basic, simple, direct fact of what he said.

It's fine with me, I don't believe the Bible or the Gospels are the literal, timeless truth anyway. There was an historical context in which Jesus lived that influenced how he saw things, and I don't expect that Christians today have to take it literally. But if we're talking about what's in the gospels, we shouldn't twist what's there.

[nredman]

anyone who believes this should read the bible more closely

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Quite possible, actually. Want to know how it's done?

It's actually fairly simple. You unbraid the rope, join the strands, and pass them through. Rebraiding the rope on the other side is optional.

Outsmarted Jesus there.

The Lord is sure to be impressed.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Besides, there are many other references to Jesus discussing wealth and poverty that make the same point - poor people will enter God's Kingdom, and rich people won't.

Could you provide some references?

[Doofy]

So once again we have a bunch of atheists telling Christians what Christianity is about.

Good show chaps.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Besides, there are many other references to Jesus discussing wealth and poverty that make the same point - poor people will enter God's Kingdom, and rich people won't. It can be debated whether he said that it's theoretically possible for a righteous wealthy person to be saved or if it's just practically impossible, but the message is very clear: If you want to follow Jesus, give your stuff away and live in poverty.

That interpretation in direct contradiction to the way Jesus acted on many occasions, as I have pointed out. No one here will deny that Jesus showed great concern for the poor, but he was not a man to exclude the wealthy simply for possessing wealth. He had followers and friends among all classes, from thieves about to be executed all the way up to members of the Jewish high court. He performed miracles for people of all classes as well, not for examples as extreme as above but certainly for rich and poor alike. Jesus was fond of speaking in parables, and many of his parables used men of wealth, often as negative examples but often as positive ones.

Does this sound like a man who considered wealth to be an unforgivable sin, as so many here are claiming? If we take Jesus' words at face value, then he seems to have practiced something very different from what he preached. I'm not prepared to call Jesus a hypocrite, and so my only alternative is to seek meanings beyond the literal. If I were a fundamentalist, this is where my faith would be greatly shaken. Fortunately, I am not a fundamentalist.

Jesus was quick to forgive sin, but he was also quick to point it out and conscientious in avoiding it himself. He did indeed say that wealth was very dangerous, and pointed out how it had corrupted the religious authorities of his day. But never did he call wealth a sin in its own right, and never did he act as though it were.

By no means do I support this "Prosperity" movement. Quite the opposite: I see the preachers of this as false prophets, leading people down a false path and ultimately away from God. I compare them to the Pharisees of Jesus' time: a corrupt group enslaved by their own wealth. If I were in a more apocalyptic mood I might even call them antichrists. I condemn them with language I normally reserve for terrorists. But exaggerating things the other way, calling Jesus an anti-wealth figure and Christianity an anti-wealth religion, does not do anybody any good.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by analogika

Outsmarted Jesus there.

The Lord is sure to be impressed.

It's not my intent to outsmart Jesus. I can't have been the first person to think of this method, and frankly it doesn't matter whether or not I am. But I do doubt that most people would consider this method, and that's the point: maintaining wealth while staying true to God's word is extraordinarily difficult, and requires approaches to such things that are radically outside the norm.

Consider, for the moment, a wealthy person who isn't concerned about his wealth. My guess is that you don't have any real-world examples, and I don't have any either: rare indeed is a person who becomes wealthy and holds onto that wealth without even trying. With a little effort I could imagine such a person, but I still come up blank for real-world examples: they're just that rare. But that's the sort of person that it would take to not become entrapped by wealth, power, drugs, or any of the other addictions that this world has to offer.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Consider, for the moment, a wealthy person who isn't concerned about his wealth. My guess is that you don't have any real-world examples, and I don't have any either

Mark Knopfler, on being asked about his fee to appear on the Chet Atkins album "Neck and Neck":

"What's the point in one millionaire billing another?"

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Millennium

It's not my intent to outsmart Jesus. I can't have been the first person to think of this method, and frankly it doesn't matter whether or not I am. But I do doubt that most people would consider this method, and that's the point: maintaining wealth while staying true to God's word is extraordinarily difficult, and requires approaches to such things that are radically outside the norm.

Well, yes: It's obviously possible to stay completely within the literal wording of the scripture while completely violating their spirit.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by analogika

Well, yes: It's obviously possible to stay completely within the literal wording of the scripture while completely violating their spirit.

Dude, you can't even read the MacNN sig rules correctly. What makes you think you can understand a complex document like The Bible?

[analogika]

My sig is in complete compliance with the MacNN guidelines.

Next, please!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by analogika

My sig is in complete compliance with the MacNN guidelines.

Our current signature rules give you two options:

- an image (200x50px max, 10KB max, non-animated) and up to one line of text, OR
- no image, and up to four lines of text

I guess you need to brush up on your English skills.

[TETENAL]

I guess it depends on what your definition of "line of text" is.