Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Christianity and wealth

  1. #1

    Default Christianity and wealth

    [Removed parts no longer relevant due to thread split]

    I have very, very extensive knowledge of the [Bible], having studied it for the better part of two decades before I realized what a joke modern Christianity is, and what an awesome job the church has done of preaching exactly the opposite of what the real gospel is - you know, the stuff about loving everyone around you as much as you love yourself, even if you think they're assholes, and the stuff about not chasing after material wealth because it screws up your ability to love everyone around you as much as you love yourself... Yeah, that stuff kinda got lost in the shuffle when the church started hoarding gold and treasures, and when the church decided it was a good idea to torture someone to death because they didn't think Jesus was all that and a bag of potato chips (or even if they did dig Jesus, but they had a lot of money that the church could keep if they executed them), or when the church decided it was a good idea to give the guys who stood in the pulpit and preached every Sunday big huge piles of money and fancy cars and big houses while members of their congregation had to beg for food and rent money, never mind all the orphans and widows (James 1:27) that weren't part of the church getting nothing at all...
    Last edited by HogansHeroes; 07-Feb-2012 at 02:56. Reason: edited due to thread split

  2. #2

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by WBDaddy View Post
    I have very, very extensive knowledge of the [Bible], having studied it for the better part of two decades before I realized what a joke modern Christianity is, and what an awesome job the church has done of preaching exactly the opposite of what the real gospel is - you know, the stuff about loving everyone around you as much as you love yourself, even if you think they're assholes, and the stuff about not chasing after material wealth because it screws up your ability to love everyone around you as much as you love yourself... Yeah, that stuff kinda got lost in the shuffle when the church started hoarding gold and treasures, and when the church decided it was a good idea to torture someone to death because they didn't think Jesus was all that and a bag of potato chips (or even if they did dig Jesus, but they had a lot of money that the church could keep if they executed them), or when the church decided it was a good idea to give the guys who stood in the pulpit and preached every Sunday big huge piles of money and fancy cars and big houses while members of their congregation had to beg for food and rent money, never mind all the orphans and widows (James 1:27) that weren't part of the church getting nothing at all...
    I am a Christian, and I agree with you that there are people who call themselves 'Christians' who are just as you describe above; however, there are many, many more who are not, and I think it is horribly broad-thinking and unfair to paint us all with the same big brush. The Bible does also say that those who mislead people and exploit Christianity, again, like those you described above, will have a special place in the after-life and NOT in a good way!

    Also, just a couple of things, and I realize you already know these things, but some people may not. One, the Bible does say to love your enemies, but it does NOT say you have to love what they do or how they act. You just need to realize that they are human, and be ready to do what you can to help them, if/when then ask for it, and not turn your back if/when they do. Two, it is NOT wrong to be rich! Money itself is NOT a sin, just like alcohol itself is not a sin. What is wrong is how being rich can cause people to act and change their personality. i.e. arrogant, selfish, etc. Just like some people can't have a drink without getting drunk, others just can't seem to handle having a lot of money in a healthy way.
    Last edited by HogansHeroes; 07-Feb-2012 at 02:56. Reason: quote updating

  3. #3

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by BabyJessi View Post
    I am a Christian, and I agree with you that there are people who call themselves 'Christians' who are just as you describe above; however, there are many, many more who are not, and I think it is horribly broad-thinking and unfair to paint us all with the same big brush. The Bible does also say that those who mislead people and exploit Christianity, again, like those you described above, will have a special place in the after-life and NOT in a good way!
    You're right. It's hard, though, when they're everywhere, particularly in my neck of the woods.



    Also, just a couple of things, and I realize you already know these things, but some people may not. One, the Bible does say to love your enemies, but it does NOT say you have to love what they do or how they act.
    The operative here is that you are not called to point out the sin of those who are lost, and you are certainly not called to try and influence the political process to try and legislate biblical morality.



    Two, it is NOT wrong to be rich! Money itself is NOT a sin, just like alcohol itself is not a sin. What is wrong is how being rich can cause people to act and change their personality. i.e. arrogant, selfish, etc. Just like some people can't have a drink without getting drunk, others just can't seem to handle having a lot of money in a healthy way.
    The only part of it being wrong to be rich is when you haven't taken care of your moral obligation to take care of all your church brethren (Matt 25:40) and the destitute - orphans and widows (James 1:27). If you have excess and your brother starves, you are absolutely in the wrong according to scripture.

  4. #4

    Default

    [Removed parts no longer relevant due to thread split]



    Quote Originally Posted by BabyJessi View Post
    Two, it is NOT wrong to be rich!
    Luke 6:20-26

    20 Looking at his disciples, he said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
    21 Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
    22 Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.
    23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.
    24 “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.
    25 Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.
    26 Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

    Of course, there's the possibility that this isn't meant to be taken literally. Wait, the bible has sections which aren't meant to be taken literally? You don't say! I think that's an unlikely proposition. God spurning the rich seems to be in line with Luke 6:30, which encourages the followers of Christ to give up their worldly possessions out of a sense of charity. Moreover, I think that Luke 6:20 sounds as if it's meant to be taken literally. Luke 6:20 and 6:24 sound to me as if they need to both be taken as literal, or both be taken as allegorical.

    Now I wouldn't go hardline and say this means that to be saved, you must be poor and can't be rich. But I interpret it to mean that God reserves his love for those who suffer, either by circumstance or choice (foregoing worldly possessions and luxuries), and withholds it from those who could give up their worldly possessions for charitable causes but choose not too. In simple terms, God isn't pleased if you buy a Ferrari with money that could have been sent to the Red Cross/Red Crescent.
    Last edited by HogansHeroes; 07-Feb-2012 at 02:56. Reason: removing stuff related to prior thread.

  5. #5

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by NightFox View Post
    Luke 6:20-26

    20 Looking at his disciples, he said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
    21 Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
    22 Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.
    23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.
    24 “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.
    25 Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.
    26 Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

    Of course, there's the possibility that this isn't meant to be taken literally. Wait, the bible has sections which aren't meant to be taken literally? You don't say! I think that's an unlikely proposition. God spurning the rich seems to be in line with Luke 6:30, which encourages the followers of Christ to give up their worldly possessions out of a sense of charity. Moreover, I think that Luke 6:20 sounds as if it's meant to be taken literally. Luke 6:20 and 6:24 sound to me as if they need to both be taken as literal, or both be taken as allegorical.

    Now I wouldn't go hardline and say this means that to be saved, you must be poor and can't be rich. But I interpret it to mean that God reserves his love for those who suffer, either by circumstance or choice (foregoing worldly possessions and luxuries), and withholds it from those who could give up their worldly possessions for charitable causes but choose not too. In simple terms, God isn't pleased if you buy a Ferrari with money that could have been sent to the Red Cross/Red Crescent.
    Well, I think you are mostly right, but you really have to read that entire chapter to get the context of what Jesus is saying there, and even then, this is only a part of what is commonly called the 'Sermon on the Mount' that Jesus gave. Luke mentions part of it, but Matthew records the whole thing in chapters 5-7. The whole sermon is basically about a Christian's attitude and how he should act, and how different it should be from 'worldly' people.

    The way I believe you get God's love or not really has nothing to do with your wealth, and just because you suffer doesn't mean you are at the top of the list either. It's all in your attitude and how you handle whatever situation you happen to be going through in your life. Now, as I said before, being rich tends to lend itself to selfishness and haughtiness among other things, which are clearly against what Jesus is describing as the Christian attitude in this sermon. However, being poor can lead to jealousy and envy, which are just as clearly against that Christian attitude. It's all about being thoughtful of others and helping where you can. He doesn't expect us to work 60-80 hours a week, just to give it all to others and live as paupers, but he also doesn't want us to horde all the blessings he gives and not give back. When I was a child, my parents taught the attitude to me with a short acronym for the word JOY:

    Jesus first.
    Others second.
    Yourself last.

    It's really as simple as that.

    BTW, it's not just money that can lead us away from this attitude. It's anything in your life that keeps you from having the 'JOY' list above in the correct order. In other words, I believe, if your AB/DL fetish is causing you to be selfish, and expect your significant other or parents or whoever to cater completely to your needs, without your reciprocating on his/her feelings and needs than you are just as in the wrong as the rich guy who hordes all his money in a bank. It's the same sin. It's thinking only about yourself, and treating others just as objects that are there to satisfy you. In other words, you've got your 'JOY' backwards!

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by NightFox View Post
    Luke 6:20-26

    20 Looking at his disciples, he said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
    21 Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
    22 Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.
    23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.
    24 “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.
    25 Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.
    26 Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

    Of course, there's the possibility that this isn't meant to be taken literally. Wait, the bible has sections which aren't meant to be taken literally? You don't say! I think that's an unlikely proposition. God spurning the rich seems to be in line with Luke 6:30, which encourages the followers of Christ to give up their worldly possessions out of a sense of charity. Moreover, I think that Luke 6:20 sounds as if it's meant to be taken literally. Luke 6:20 and 6:24 sound to me as if they need to both be taken as literal, or both be taken as allegorical.

    Now I wouldn't go hardline and say this means that to be saved, you must be poor and can't be rich. But I interpret it to mean that God reserves his love for those who suffer, either by circumstance or choice (foregoing worldly possessions and luxuries), and withholds it from those who could give up their worldly possessions for charitable causes but choose not too. In simple terms, God isn't pleased if you buy a Ferrari with money that could have been sent to the Red Cross/Red Crescent.
    But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full. (Luke 6:24)

    The use of the strong adversative conjunction (but) indicates that the woes pronounced on those who reject Jesus Christ are in direct contrast to the blessings granted to His true believers. The first woe was not pronounced on the materially rich. Being wealthy in and of itself is not sinful; Abraham, Job, Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea were rich, and according to Deuteronomy 8:18 God grants the power to obtain wealth. The rich in view here are those who imagine themselves to be rich in the spiritual realm, who think that their righteous deeds are sufficient to obtain salvation. A prime example is the Pharisee in the Lord’s story, who “was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get’”(Luke 18:11–12). The curse pronounced on them is that they are receiving their comfort in full in this life. What awaits them in eternity is the comfortless, ceaseless torment of hell (cf.Luke 16:25).
    Last edited by HogansHeroes; 07-Feb-2012 at 02:44. Reason: updating quote

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Coodie View Post
    *snip*
    This is, excluding the old testament, the thing that bothers me the most about the bible, by far. I was raised a catholic in a rather liberal environment. The priest we had when I was a kid was, as a person, absolutely amazing. I was deeply religious when I was a young child, and he was a huge part of why I was so. I never had a ah-ha moment where I became an atheist (as it happened due to a combination of factors) but I do believe that said priest moving to another parish was at least partially responsible.

    Anyway, father Stanislas was pretty liberal, and so where my Sunday school teachers back in the day. I was taught that pets go to heaven. I was taught that a person's character, not what they believe in, is what matters to God. I was taught that people like Gandhi where, in a manner of speaking, prophets since they accomplished God's will through their actions. I was taught that preaching was about actions, not words or believes.

    I grew up believing that 2.1 billion people believed that the road to salvation was to be relentlessly good to one another. One of the great disappointment of my life was to find that most Christians are in no way Christ-like. Another one of the great disappointment of my life was to find out that according to the book I used to put so much faith in being relentlessly good to one another was neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for salvation.

    Even after I became an atheist I used to consider the bible and the catholic church as a source of moral guidance (I still try to follow Jesus' teachings, to a point). The old testament, and the sections of the new testaments that you have pointed to, essentially made me lose faith in the church and in the bible as moral compass. If god is all loving, shouldn't how I treat his children all that matters? Shouldn't what one controls (choices) trump what one ha little control over (beliefs)?

    I used to believe the new testament to be righteous, even after becoming an atheist. The verses you quoted, and others that indicate essentially the same thing, are what now make me believe that he bible, as a whole, is sadly a rather cynical attempt to exploit the great man that was Jesus.

    Apologies for going deeply off topic. This is a rant that has been building up for a while, so I felt compelled to write it now. I'll look into whether or not I should split this thread once I get home, as we've veered pretty far from abortion (even before this post).


    Sent from my iPhone

  8. #8

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by NightFox View Post
    How frikkin long did it take to type that on a smartphone?
    He has impressive typing skills beyond that of any iphone user... ever. He thinks that iphone texting/messaging is an olympic sport :P... I kid, I kid...

    To add some more to the topic since it has gone further now, I want to add that I don't understand how religion can affect someones opinions so deeply. Don't get me wrong, I respect all religions, and am in no way saying anything about them. But I have seen people completely change their mind based entirely on "Oh, I'm a *insert religion here* now". This doesn't seem logical to me... your opinions shouldn't be required to change to get admittance to some 'group' of people.

    [Removed parts no longer relevant due to thread split]
    Last edited by HogansHeroes; 07-Feb-2012 at 02:57. Reason: removing parts related to old thread

  10. #10

    Default

    No, I'm sorry, but Jesus was pretty clear about his followers eschewing material wealth.



    Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek). For your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
    But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
    Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
    Matthew 6:31-34, for those keeping score.

    Many Christians cite 6:33 as proof that God is okay with Christians having wealth as long as they're focused on God "first" (and, of course, they all quite believe they fit that description, despite the fact that they spend 40 hours or more per week serving Mammon and a mere two or three on Sunday putting on a good face for Jesus). But take a good hard look at what he's saying here...

    What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?...

    ...and all these things shall be added unto you.

    Jesus didn't even guarantee he'd make sure you had someplace to live. He said seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and God would make sure you had a full belly and clothes on your back. That's it.

    He reinforces this point in Luke 9:58 when he is approached by a starry-eyed new recruit who saw him do the five loaves and two fishes trick.

    "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."


    Claiming that Jesus' rebuke of the wealthy was some sort of metaphorical backhand is also in direct opposition to his prior direct dealing with money issues (Mark 12:41-44)

    And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

    And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

    And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

    He had no respect for those who followed the letter and gave the tithe, despite how obviously the tithe did not hurt them financially. He had respect for the one who gave everything. This was a recurring theme in his teaching and in his call - that you give up everything and follow him, and let God worry about making sure you have a meal to eat and clothes to wear as you go and do his will, which is to preach this gospel to every creature, not that gobbledy-gook about the sinner's prayer punching your ticket to heaven with no further investment on your part.

Similar Threads

  1. christianity and diapers does it mix?
    By abmay153 in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02-May-2011, 08:25
  2. Christianity in Republican doctrine
    By aielen in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-Sep-2009, 01:55
  3. Your views on Christianity?
    By andrew90 in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 227
    Last Post: 12-Aug-2008, 04:32

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.