Money!

[POI]

Otseng states the following: "No, being rich is not bad. We have many rich men in the Bible (Abraham, Joseph, Job, David, Solomon, Matthew, Joseph of Arimathea, etc.) and they were not condemned for being rich."

Otseng, and myself, had a recent discussion about Jesus's mention of the rich. He ultimately expressed the above. In an effort to keep the other topic on track, I'm making this new one.

For debate:

1. Is being 'rich' a relative term, or is it instead objective when Jesus/God identifies you as 'rich'?
2. How do you know if Jesus/God deems you as rich or not?
3. Seems Otseng is saying that being rich can change your focus. Money instead becomes your numero uno, or God. And this is why he tells folks to get rid of it, so they no longer prioritize the money/possessions over God. Is this the gist of it here?
4. If being rich is okay, why did Jesus choose to be "poor"? Or did he even have a choice?
5. Would Jesus rather you be rich or poor, and why? Would he choose for you to instead be poor because he knows you may covet these material possessions over him? If so, isn't being rich worse than being poor, according to Jesus?
6. If being rich is such a high risk for no longer keeping your focus on numero uno, (Jesus), then why do so many Christians strive to become rich?

[benchwarmer]

4. If being rich is okay, why did Jesus choose to be "poor"?

My answer is, he was not poor, because he had everything he needed.

You are just equivocating to avoid answering the question. Look carefully at the title of this OP. We are talking about money in regards to the terms 'rich' and 'poor'.

[POI]

4. If being rich is okay, why did Jesus choose to be "poor"?

My answer is, he was not poor, because he had everything he needed.

The topic is about money. He had none. If he did not need money, then why do you need it? Why don't you get rid of it, like he tells others to do? Do you covet money over Jesus? If you say you don't, actions speak louder than words. It's quite easy to say you do not covet your money, while keeping your money.

[2ndpillar2]

Otseng states the following: "No, being rich is not bad. We have many rich men in the Bible (Abraham, Joseph, Job, David, Solomon, Matthew, Joseph of Arimathea, etc.) and they were not condemned for being rich."

Otseng, and myself, had a recent discussion about Jesus's mention of the rich. He ultimately expressed the above. In an effort to keep the other topic on track, I'm making this new one.

For debate:

1. Is being 'rich' a relative term, or is it instead objective when Jesus/God identifies you as 'rich'?
2. How do you know if Jesus/God deems you as rich or not?
3. Seems Otseng is saying that being rich can change your focus. Money instead becomes your numero uno, or God. And this is why he tells folks to get rid of it, so they no longer prioritize the money/possessions over God. Is this the gist of it here?
4. If being rich is okay, why did Jesus choose to be "poor"? Or did he even have a choice?
5. Would Jesus rather you be rich or poor, and why? Would he choose for you to instead be poor because he knows you may covet these material possessions over him? If so, isn't being rich worse than being poor, according to Jesus?
6. If being rich is such a high risk for no longer keeping your focus on numero uno, (Jesus), then why do so many Christians strive to become rich?

Yeshua said you must first seek the "kingdom of heaven", and then what you need will be provided (Mt 6:33), and according to Mt 19, that entails keeping the Commandments, and if you want to be "perfect, you will have to give all you have to the poor and then follow me. It is about priorities. A hint to the wise, it is easier to give all you have when you are young and poor.

[TRANSPONDER]

4. If being rich is okay, why did Jesus choose to be "poor"?

My answer is, he was not poor, because he had everything he needed.

You are just equivocating to avoid answering the question. Look carefully at the title of this OP. We are talking about money in regards to the terms 'rich' and 'poor'.

He is indeed and being evasive. As I pointed out in my post, Christian, Taoist or indeed Hippy, all these pseudo - philosophical lifestyles that scorn money and possessions and 'Have all they need" as our pal who does not get it and does not want to, says, is that they can only survive by scrounging off those who accept the cosmic rules of existence - one has to put in a bit of effort to survive.

Without a long lecture exposing those who moan about the System, this system is paradisical enabling up, by collective effort and ingenuity, to live a life of ease, comfort and opportunities unimaginable to those living rwo centuries ago (and not infrequently, those ingrates who benefit from it fume at having to kick in taxes).

That's by the way; what is not is that those who want to opt out and live a simple life without funds, still have to find a way to survive, and those who rely on others who work for their livelihood to grubstake their non - participant lifestyle deserve to be left to their own devices and peddle their pseudo - philosophical trash to the empty spaces.

I would almost put religions in this category, but they did provide some decent art and some churches that make interesting hotels and apartments when they have to sell up because the place is empty of a Sunday, and they do a bit of charity work, after all.

So the point is, Jesus was a sponger, so the gospels tell us. In reality he might have used his own family money, though I hope he expressed more gratitude to his family than the Gospels indicate.

Luke's solution as to how Jesus and the 12 got by is frankly a disgrace and it is a relief even to me, an unbeliever, to rationalise that Luke simply made it up, even if it might reflect how Luke regarded the female believers - to be exploited in at least one way.

John talks about a common purse but does not tell how it was filled. We can guess. Money and how it is going to please God to give it all to the 'poor' (trust me, this means the Church) tells you all you need to know, if the greedy - grabbing of massive wealth in exchange for hot air and strings of lies from this tax -free legalised scam did not.

[POI]

if you want to be "perfect, you will have to give all you have to the poor and then follow me. It is about priorities. A hint to the wise, it is easier to give all you have when you are young and poor.

Is giving away all you have a requirement, or not? If it is not, why mention it at all?

[Purple Knight]

My answer is, he was not poor, because he had everything he needed.

Then would you agree that insofar as the modern world is engineered so that we need more, we aren't greedy or sinful (or whatever it is Jesus is telling us not to do) for pursuing more?

For example, in 0AD you can go walk in the woods, in rotten clothes, and eat nuts and berries, or in the Middle East, you can eat figs. That's what Jesus did and there's even an example of him making some analogy about Israel and a fig tree that wouldn't give fruit, upon finding one that didn't.

But in 2024, you can't do that. It's somebody's property and you're stealing. So you either need a farm, which you will have to pay taxes on, and the situation is engineered so that only the big players can play (Nixon flat out said that was the goal of his policies on farming - "Get big or get out.") So you need a job. And now you can't just have rotten linens. You will be expected to be presentable: To wear what in 0AD would have been considered finery. So now you need a place to wash, which is a house or an apartment. And you're going to be expected to work long hours to afford that house or apartment. So now you need a coffee to wake up in the morning.

And it's true, when Jesus lived as he did (whether he was a fable or not, certainly people did) I feel bad for spending money on clothes and on nice things. Peter Singer says, you don't need those nice clothes, wear rags and give to the poor. You don't need that coffee, instead give to the poor. But the world is sort of engineered so that we need these things.

[1213]

My answer is, he was not poor, because he had everything he needed.

Then would you agree that insofar as the modern world is engineered so that we need more, we aren't greedy or sinful (or whatever it is Jesus is telling us not to do) for pursuing more?

I don''t think we need more than then. And it is not greedy to want to have a place to live, clothes and food. Greedy is to want more than what is necessary. And it is wrong, if you have for example 100 jackets, and your neighbor has none and yet you would not give him one, if he would need it. The point of the teachings of Jesus is not that people are miserable. The point is, property should not rule people and people should care about others. That is possible also in this modern system.

Bible is not against people having nice things. It is against nice things ruling people. If you would get lot of all kind of good things, you can take it happily and thank God. But, it would be good to remember people near you and help them, if they need help. However, helping other doesn't necessary mean that you must buy them mansions and give everything you have to them. If someone demands that from you, he is greedy, like socialists often seem to be, by demanding everything, without offering anything useful for anyone.

For example, in 0AD you can go walk in the woods, in rotten clothes, and eat nuts and berries, or in the Middle East, you can eat figs. That's what Jesus did and there's even an example of him making some analogy about Israel and a fig tree that wouldn't give fruit, upon finding one that didn't.

But in 2024, you can't do that. It's somebody's property and you're stealing. So you either need a farm, which you will have to pay taxes on, and the situation is engineered so that only the big players can play (Nixon flat out said that was the goal of his policies on farming - "Get big or get out.") So you need a job. And now you can't just have rotten linens. You will be expected to be presentable: To wear what in 0AD would have been considered finery. So now you need a place to wash, which is a house or an apartment. And you're going to be expected to work long hours to afford that house or apartment. So now you need a coffee to wake up in the morning.

And it's true, when Jesus lived as he did (whether he was a fable or not, certainly people did) I feel bad for spending money on clothes and on nice things. Peter Singer says, you don't need those nice clothes, wear rags and give to the poor. You don't need that coffee, instead give to the poor. But the world is sort of engineered so that we need these things.

It is interesting that in the 0AD, the owner of a property should have allowed people to walk and eat like that. And if a nation is Christians, it should still allow that. One of the best things in Finland is that it is allowed here still, people can fish and collect berries with the freedom to roam. (Obviously for to eat, but not to collect and sell).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

But I agree, modern world is arranged badly, because it basically demands people to be slaves for governments.

[1213]

The topic is about money. He had none. If he did not need money, then why do you need it? Why don't you get rid of it, like he tells others to do? Do you covet money over Jesus? If you say you don't, actions speak louder than words. It's quite easy to say you do not covet your money, while keeping your money.

Ok, then why did you speak about being rich or poor? Money has not much to do with those.

It seems to me that you have some weird definition for covet = To feel strong or immoderate desire for (that which is another's). I don't think I covet money, even if I have some money. For me money is only a medium of exchange, I only have it for example to get food. I get rid of money, by changing it to something useful.

But, why do you think Jesus tells others to get rid of money?

[1213]

4. If being rich is okay, why did Jesus choose to be "poor"?

My answer is, he was not poor, because he had everything he needed.

You are just equivocating to avoid answering the question. Look carefully at the title of this OP. We are talking about money in regards to the terms 'rich' and 'poor'.

But money is a poor measure. People can have lot of money, but still be poor. For example when inflation is high, people can have lot of money, but they don't get much with it. And it seems, value of all fiat money, like dollar, is eventually zero.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to 1213 in post #17]


You have a good point. Yes, it is ok to have enough not to worry about managing, enough to do more than that, and indeed having enough that you get whatever you need to have. but be 'ruled' by these things. There are enough tales about people who spent piles of money on stuff they didn't need just because they had it to spend. That's when something has gone wrong.

But this is not actually the lesson of the gospels. It is not about greed or being a wastrel.It is bout God being inclined to bar you from salvation for the sin of not giving all your money to the church, and that, friends is the message of the gospels, and you can bet all your chips on that. if you had any doubt of it, Luke's tale of Annas and Sapphira will hammer the point home - if you want to displease God, just keep half your money back and only give half of all you have to the church.