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?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

The Bible (gospels - especially Luke) obsess about money, and one might argue that the idea is to rid yourself of earthly attachments and go for the spiritual life and 'the poor'really does mean the impoverished, not the Church community; the Poor, as well as the Meek,being a monicker for the Ebionites, like the Saints in Jerusalem which is (as Paul tells us) the Jewish -Christian Church in Rome. The money was to go to the early Church. And Luke's nasty oblique threat
that you mustn't keep anything for yourself (God will supposedly provide) makes it quite clear to whom the money is supposed to go.

[1213]

...And Luke's nasty oblique threat
that you mustn't keep anything for yourself ...

You must have a different Bible, I have not found such a threat.

[TRANSPONDER]

...And Luke's nasty oblique threat
that you mustn't keep anything for yourself ...

You must have a different Bible, I have not found such a threat.

You have a different Bible from me. I have one printed on paper. You have one printed in your head. It says what you want it to say. The "Ghost Bible" is an effect I realised quite early on (after 'keyword exegesis - a crude form of misdirection)
. We all know what's going on (if we are host about it) and it is self -justification of one's own opinions, and denying evidence,logic and even what the Bible actually says, if it doesn't fit the Beliefs - doctrinal or, in some cases, personal if they do not fit with mainstream church dogma.

I have seen so much evidence that reality itself is denied if it contradicts the faith, never mind science or logic. I still think the posting of the whole empty tomb to the disciples running to look (I'm sure this was you) but leaving out the bits that you didn't like was the most egregious example of fooling ones'self and trying to fool others that I have seen. It is only that it is such a good bad Example that I don't simply give up on persistent denial.

It's par for the course, though. Some time ago I showed clearly that God hardened Pharaoh's heart - using Bible text. One with whom I will not engage then started posting unrelated Bible passages loosely related to Egyptian religion as though it was anything but misdirection. But this is ... standard faithbased denialist thinking.

I expect to find it in Alabama, but how sad to find it in Finland, Home of Nokia, Tove and Sibelius.

[1213]

...And Luke's nasty oblique threat
that you mustn't keep anything for yourself ...

You must have a different Bible, I have not found such a threat.

You have a different Bible from me. I have one printed on paper...

In that case, please show where is the threat you were speaking of?

but leaving out the bits that you didn't like...

Why are you spreading lies? I have not left anything out and I like the whole Bible.

... in Finland, Home of Nokia, Tove and Sibelius.

Nice that you know.

[POI]

So, you only keep exactly what you need and give away all the rest? You do not save for retirement, save for a rainy day, save for vacation(s), save for your kids, save for anything at all?

As I told another, why not just get rid of all your money, to be on the safe side? Jesus is not a fan of money/possessions, according to his words from the Bible.

The "exactly what you need", includes in my opinion that one takes care of his kids. Saving money for future is not a problem. The problem is, if that money begins to rule one, if it becomes more important than God for example.

Because you cannot serve two masters. If you completely get rid of money/possessions, your head then becomes clear, and you keep your focus on Jesus/God. If you keep some of your money/possessions, you instead become distracted. And Jesus no likey.

Funny thing is, many people who have "not enough" money in their opinion, are more focused on money than those who seem to have more. Being without money, doesn't necessary mean that person is not focused on money.

But, it can be true, if person has much money and property, it can become too important for him. One should be careful with it and not let it become the master.

The funny thing is, according to the Bible, you are flirting with danger. Saving money for the future seems to be a problem for Jesus. Why don't you just instead get rid of all your money/possessions, as to not be in danger of serving your true master --> (money)? God is not going to fault you for giving away most/all your money/possessions. If Jesus is truly there for you, he should look after you anyway, (regardless of how little you have), right?

[TRANSPONDER]

...And Luke's nasty oblique threat
that you mustn't keep anything for yourself ...

You must have a different Bible, I have not found such a threat.

You have a different Bible from me. I have one printed on paper...

In that case, please show where is the threat you were speaking of?

but leaving out the bits that you didn't like...

Why are you spreading lies? I have not left anything out and I like the whole Bible.

... in Finland, Home of Nokia, Tove and Sibelius.

Nice that you know.

The threat (as you should recall) is the one dished out to Ananus and Sapphira - don't dare to keep any money back; give it all to the church. That is effectively an example of leaving out (or forgetting) bits you don't like. Sure you like the whole Bible - as Edited in your head, forgetting, omitting or denying any bits you don't like, just as you did above.

[1213]

...Saving money for the future seems to be a problem for Jesus...

Why do you think so?

Why don't you just instead get rid of all your money/possessions, as to not be in danger of serving your true master --> (money)? God is not going to fault you for giving away most/all your money/possessions. If Jesus is truly there for you, he should look after you anyway, (regardless of how little you have), right?

What if Jesus it there for me and it means I get money to buy things that I need?

[TRANSPONDER]

...Saving money for the future seems to be a problem for Jesus...

Why do you think so?

Why don't you just instead get rid of all your money/possessions, as to not be in danger of serving your true master --> (money)? God is not going to fault you for giving away most/all your money/possessions. If Jesus is truly there for you, he should look after you anyway, (regardless of how little you have), right?

What if Jesus it there for me and it means I get money to buy things that I need?

'Scuse me POI....Because Jesus supposedly argued that money was a hindrance, a problem in getting through the narrow gate, and better if we just do like the birds and flowers do and just expect God to provide.

Just shows that those words were not spoken by anyone with understanding, as birds do not have an easy life of it. Nor do humans die in winter and regrow every spring. I would like to take a Bible apologist, stick him in the ground and let him ltry to photosynthesise, I would love to stick him in a twig hut, and let him catch insects and sip from ponds. There is a reason the Religious either need to work, or scrounge off those who do. It looks like the text stuffed into Jesus' mouth were written by those too used to having the Faithful bring them three square meals a day.

[Mae von H]

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?

I have observed two women, one christian and not, who went from middle class to wealthy (married doctors) and observed the change in character that happened. It was the first time I understood why Jesus said it’s hard(er) for the rich to enter heaven.

The worse change was in the atheist. She really became “full of herself” saying indirectly that she was better than others. She is in a word, now odious. Both became more obsessed with money and were less generous than when poorer. I saw why it’s harder for the rich because of what having money does to them.

Btw, the atheist thinks of herself as “generous” but I observed stingy. I suspect the stingy tell others they’re “generous” because they notice every dime they give and it looms large in their mind. The generous don’t notice or remember or focus on giving because it’s natural and not a BIG deal.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yeah, well, anecdotal stories do not count as evidence.Even if the women and their acquisition of money was true, why should we go along with your jaundiced report? Not least'the atheist was worse'.

I can talk about my own experience which was that when my finances improved, I stopped fretting about money and could afford to be more generous too.