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?

[1213]

[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.

Thanks. I think the story about Ananias shows nicely that disciples didn't have to give their money to Church. Ananias faked giving all the money to the Church, to look good in others eyes. And that was wrong and bad. Not giving up his money would not have been a problem.

But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While you kept it, didn't it remain your own? After it was sold, wasn't it in your power? How is it that you have conceived this thing in your heart? You haven't lied to men, but to God."
Acts 5:3-4

And I think it would be good to understand also, when money was given to the Church, it was to be shared with everyone so that all would have had enough what they need, food and clothes. It was not meant for the leaders to get rich. It is sad that the nice idea has been corrupted and now people pay massively for the leaders so that they can live in their mansions in the expense of other people.

I think it would be good, if people would know this old Christians teaching:

And when an Apostle goes forth let him accept nothing but bread till he reach his night's lodging; but if he ask for money, he is a false prophet.
Didakhe XI:6 (http://www.thedidache.com/)

Every time a Church leader comes to you and asks for money, remember that.

And about using money for stuff that is not necessary. I don't see it as a problem. The money goes for someone who did probably something nice for the buyer. I think it can be ok, as long as money and property are not the master. And obviously, if ones neighbor is miserable, it would be best first to help him and only after that, spent money for something that is not absolutely necessary. Storing the money in a vast money bin is not very good.

He said to them, "Beware! Keep yourselves from covetousness, for a man's life doesn't consist of the abundance of the things which he possesses." He spoke a parable to them, saying, "The ground of a certain rich man brought forth abundantly. He reasoned within himself, saying, 'What will I do, because I don't have room to store my crops?' He said, 'This is what I will do. I will pull down my barns, and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. I will tell my soul, "Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years. Take your ease, eat, drink, be merry."' "But God said to him, 'You foolish one, tonight your soul is required of you. The things which you have prepared--whose will they be?' So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."
Luke 12:15-21

In Biblical point of view, everything is in God's hands. Disciples of Jesus should resort to God. It may be that God lets a person have lot of money. It would be foolish to then think, "I have all this money, it takes care of me", when in the first place, it all comes by God's grace anyway. Disciples of Jesus should trust to God, He arranges everything that is necessary. And in some cases it may be that God arranges lot of money for someone. And if so, it would be good, if the person would then use the money in a good way.

Give, and good measure will be given to you, pressed down and shaken together, and running over, they will give into your bosom. For the same measure which you measure, it will be measured back to you.
Luke 6:38

[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.

Thanks. I think the story about Ananias shows nicely that disciples didn't have to give their money to Church. Ananias faked giving all the money to the Church, to look good in others eyes. And that was wrong and bad. Not giving up his money would not have been a problem.

But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While you kept it, didn't it remain your own? After it was sold, wasn't it in your power? How is it that you have conceived this thing in your heart? You haven't lied to men, but to God."
Acts 5:3-4

And I think it would be good to understand also, when money was given to the Church, it was to be shared with everyone so that all would have had enough what they need, food and clothes. It was not meant for the leaders to get rich. It is sad that the nice idea has been corrupted and now people pay massively for the leaders so that they can live in their mansions in the expense of other people.

I think it would be good, if people would know this old Christians teaching:

And when an Apostle goes forth let him accept nothing but bread till he reach his night's lodging; but if he ask for money, he is a false prophet.
Didakhe XI:6 (http://www.thedidache.com/)

Every time a Church leader comes to you and asks for money, remember that.

And about using money for stuff that is not necessary. I don't see it as a problem. The money goes for someone who did probably something nice for the buyer. I think it can be ok, as long as money and property are not the master. And obviously, if ones neighbor is miserable, it would be best first to help him and only after that, spent money for something that is not absolutely necessary. Storing the money in a vast money bin is not very good.

He said to them, "Beware! Keep yourselves from covetousness, for a man's life doesn't consist of the abundance of the things which he possesses." He spoke a parable to them, saying, "The ground of a certain rich man brought forth abundantly. He reasoned within himself, saying, 'What will I do, because I don't have room to store my crops?' He said, 'This is what I will do. I will pull down my barns, and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. I will tell my soul, "Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years. Take your ease, eat, drink, be merry."' "But God said to him, 'You foolish one, tonight your soul is required of you. The things which you have prepared--whose will they be?' So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."
Luke 12:15-21

In Biblical point of view, everything is in God's hands. Disciples of Jesus should resort to God. It may be that God lets a person have lot of money. It would be foolish to then think, "I have all this money, it takes care of me", when in the first place, it all comes by God's grace anyway. Disciples of Jesus should trust to God, He arranges everything that is necessary. And in some cases it may be that God arranges lot of money for someone. And if so, it would be good, if the person would then use the money in a good way.

Give, and good measure will be given to you, pressed down and shaken together, and running over, they will give into your bosom. For the same measure which you measure, it will be measured back to you.
Luke 6:38

I can hardly follow your argument here. In fact I don't think it is an argument at all, nor even an excuse, but an evasion with some random words to look like it made a point. The disciples didn't have to give all their money to the church and that was ok, but anyone else did that and it was bad and deserving of death. And seemingly your excuse is motivation. But if it isn't it is "If I do it, it's ok, but if you do it it's bad, or opting for Satan".

This greedy, frankly, demand that you hand over every penny or you are deserving of God's punishment, is not excused by claims of equal sharing. It is still greed by the church and whitewashing it with God's approval and smearing all the others by accusations of being on Satan's side, is merely muck -slinging and what is wrong with Religion. The resort yo varieties of'if it's God's will, it's ok', is the serious danger of religion.

It is hardly necessary to point up the problem of excusing greed, extortion and social mugging with the excuse that 'it's ok, the person bullying, scaming or mugging you out of your wallet will probably buy something nice for someone else".Like the person who had to hand over everything now can't buy something nice for his own kids? You can't see a problem with this scriptural justification of grift, exploitation and scam by the religion, even if the community was ideally Communistic as you admiringly argue.

Luke (who is the worst money -grubber of all the writers) contradicts himself with a sort of prosperity gospel. Give it all to the church and God will make you right. So you have to give all that to the church and keep nothing back?Nobody does that. That alone makes the story vile and immoral and thankfully, I am sure, not true.

I doubt I'll make any impression on you as I read in another post of yours the argument that paying taxes is equivalent to slavery. This was argued at length (living and working in society and contributing to the infrastructure) is not at all the same thing as buying people as lifetime property. But of course the same claim is repeated. So it isn't that the Faithful will never see that church greed, money -grabbing and exploitation is wrong, but that people who didn't realise dreadful stories of extortion with threats were in the Bible will at least be aware and will not have the woolpulled over their eyes with Biblical apologetics mendacity.

[2ndpillar2]

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?

It is a requirement for becoming "perfect". The best the "rich man", who wanted to keep his money, was to become righteous and enter into life (Mt 19), by keeping the Commandments, which is different from becoming perfect.

Do you need to be considered 'perfect' to get into heaven, or not? If not, then I guess it is neither necessary nor required? So why mention it?

I don't know, Yeshua was quoted as saying it is easier for a camel to be threaded through a needle than a rich man to enter into heaven. Now for someone to answer your question, you will have to define heaven. If you define it as simply "enter into life", well then all you have to do is "keep the Commandments" (Mt 19). The thread seems to be about "money", not heaven, per se. Whether giving your money to the poor, or keeping the Commandments, I think you will be in a quandary.

[1213]

The disciples didn't have to give all their money to the church and that was ok, but anyone else did that and it was bad and deserving of death.

Why do you think so?

[TRANSPONDER]

The disciples didn't have to give all their money to the church and that was ok, but anyone else did that and it was bad and deserving of death.

Why do you think so?

Because of what you said yourself. "I think the story about Ananias shows nicely that disciples didn't have to give their money to Church." But the ones who did keep all their money back were killed for doing that. Either the disciples had to give all their money to the church like everyone other member (it says - though who does that now?) or they belonged to an elite inner circle who did not have to do that and could use that money like their own.

And isn't that why Churches become very, very, rich, even in places where the Faithful are often very, very poor, and those who use religion like a business can do very well out of it.

[1213]

...But the ones who did keep all their money back were killed for doing that. ...

No Biblical reason to to think so.

[TRANSPONDER]

...But the ones who did keep all their money back were killed for doing that. ...

No Biblical reason to to think so.

You mean you agree with me that the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira, killed for daring to keep back some of their own money from the church is not true?

[1213]

...But the ones who did keep all their money back were killed for doing that. ...

No Biblical reason to to think so.

You mean you agree with me that the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira, killed for daring to keep back some of their own money from the church is not true?

They were not killed for keeping back some money. They died because they lied and deceived. They had the right to keep their money.

[TRANSPONDER]

...But the ones who did keep all their money back were killed for doing that. ...

No Biblical reason to to think so.

You mean you agree with me that the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira, killed for daring to keep back some of their own money from the church is not true?

They were not killed for keeping back some money. They died because they lied and deceived. They had the right to keep their money.

Can anyone blame them? What right does the Church have to demand all their money? This is the very point of the topic, the greedy demands of the immeasurably wealthy Churches (1). Nobody should have to conceal how much they have to give to religion or the religion would demand it all. That's the point of that tale. Fortunately, it is just a tale.

I just noted how the gospels obsess about money and how one shouldn't keep any of it but hand it over to the 'poor' (this means the Church, who will supposedly look after the poor) and the money -grubbing of the Gospels which is matched by the money - grubbing of religions, anyway, was one more thing that didn't sit well with me while trowelling though the NT when challenged to 'really read' it.

I have to add (despite myself) how this appeal to really read the Bible or 'read it with an open mind' which actually means 'read it with unquestioning Faith', which also means accept it with gullibility and ignore any problems, is 'the perfect system for protecting lies' as Theramin trees says in his video 'losing faith'.

So I have to post the video (again) about how 'really reading the Bible' leads to problems, with the defendors of the faith on the defensive, and finding excuses which just lead to more problems and the final running away with a few insulting accusations.



I'll say of you that you stick around, gamely, even though you do just deny everything and seem to forget every time you had your case demolished.

(1)I watched a documentary about the Church in Germany - hardly the most God -ridden of nations these days - and I was staggered about how much money and property it has It could pay Trump's legal fees tomorrow, if it wan't intent on hanging onto ever last pfennig.

[1213]

What right does the Church have to demand all their money?

I don't think they have such a right and I don't think in Bible Church demands money.