Once again, it's confirmed...Yeah, except he stated getting a rich man into Heaven is like trying to do something harder than impossible.
I'd rather be rich than Christian.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Once again, it's confirmed...Yeah, except he stated getting a rich man into Heaven is like trying to do something harder than impossible.
Another teaching of Jesus' typically ignored by christians.Yet, when you judge, you are judged.
And you really haven't presented all that Jesus taught nor do you break down what he said correctly.
Wait, so you actually do see the needy and downtrodden as "lowly riff raff"?And, Yes, most churches would be open and generous. And we specialize in making beautiful things out of lowly riff raff.
In the Sermon On the Mount, Jesus made it very clear that we are to go out of our way to help the poor and dispossessed, thus the answer is quite clearly yes.most of the far right in the US rails against socialism but isn't that what jesus was promoting?
Wot?! They're cannibals!Your next door neighbor?
No. In Venezuela, they took a whole apartment complex and gave it to the poor. In less than a year, the complex was destroyed... did that help them?
That country often comes up in discussions of socialism.I don't understand why Venezuela is so often used as an example by conservatives.
What does Venezuela have to do with Kentucky?
As you know, Venezuela was led by a Marxist, certainly not a Scandinavian-style socialist.I don't understand why Venezuela is so often used as an example by conservatives.
What does Venezuela have to do with Kentucky?
That country often comes up in discussions of socialism.
Venezuela: How Venezuela's Socialist Economy Became a "Warehouse Capitalism" - The New Zealand News
As you know, Venezuela was led by a Marxist, certainly not a Scandinavian-style socialist.
Do you think it would be better if everybody were poor, and nobody rich? Especially considering the progressive tax structure in the US?It depends, when there wealth disparity is too great that there's a few rich people and tons of people who are poor, that there are rich people in this scenario is a problem.
love exists at all levels but there is a difference in being a mentor, role model, guardian, shepherd and a despot. one is only interested in profiting from it's subordinates and the other is interested in insuring the beings in their care get their needs met and the skills to become stewards themselves. you cannot server serve self and serve other as self. you cannot serve selfisness and selflessnessThere's only humans. The weakest permit others to delegate them to servitude.
A goat is a great example. It admits it's a goat and not a sheep. It knows this is not a big difference. It will fight to keep it's crown of horns, however. It's not saying it doesn't love. Love begins with the self.
the personality has to be stripped away along with all those materialistic entanglements.you cannot serve hierarchies, orders, and serve god, or serve love. love doesn't make a difference between self and other as self. this is how empathy works. you cannot serve selfisness and selflessness. the poor in spirit are blessed for a reason.Except he said that with God all things are possible and then said how those who gave were going to be increased exponentially... a conundrum for sure but certainly an affront to the anti-rich position mentioned.
there were 3 men that were given 3 different talent amts. Everyone invested their talents; except the third. He gave each according to their ability, that is a meritocracy. each was entrusted to do what love would compel but the third one didn't do that. he buried his; he didn't try to improve his lot or that of the other; so then what was the outcome? those who won't work for love, are in darkness. love should not be kept only for self; otherwise you are denying god's right to his own, or denying love's right to it's ownI'm not sure what that has to do with anything. He also spoke to the rich man, Zacchaeus but it was totally different.
Perhaps what he was saying was "wrong is wrong and more-so wrong when you are rich and you consume widows houses?"
I agree that those who are rich are suppose to help those who are not because if they don't, they are confronting the face of God.
But what is today isn't how we started out. Public schools started around the 1850's. I think the fallacy here is that just because we have some government funded efforts means that socialism is good or that socialism is what we should have.
Good point... but finding a bad apple in a bag of good apples doesn't translate that all apples are bad and shouldn't be eaten.
Jon Bon Jovi is rich and helps the poor.
So what is your point?
the beast???? like a ravening wolf? or roaring lion? devouring anyone and everyone in its path?Greed isn't Christian. It isn't even human. It's just the behavior of a dumb animal.
No, it would be better if income distribution were more equitable.Do you think it would be better if everybody were poor, and nobody rich? Especially considering the progressive tax structure in the US?
Humans are animals, and greed is something humans do. Pretending otherwise does no one any good.Greed isn't Christian. It isn't even human. It's just the behavior of a dumb animal.
humans can be thick headed or have greater mental acuity. the ability to think abstractly is greater in humans. so the ability for greater mental capacity, for spiritual capacity is greater in humans vs other beasts. being born into ignorance doesn't require us to remain their. lets go higher to see farther. on a clear day i can see forever but sometimes the clouds get in the way.Humans are animals, and greed is something humans do. Pretending otherwise does no one any good.
I really don't know where they get off calling themselves Marxist. Anyone, really. Except for they haven't read Marx to know things like class, money, and the state itself are done away with in a Marxist state with the working class being at the top.As you know, Venezuela was led by a Marxist, certainly not a Scandinavian-style socialist.
It should be labeled "Scandinavian capitalism",I guess that's the reason, because Venezuela is the cautionary tale, and Scandinavian socialism (happiest countries in the world on a recurring basis, btw) doesn't hold up as a cautionary tale?
I haven't been.First of all, you seem to want to omit what was said after. Why?
Again, Jesus didn't say it's impossible, but that it's harder than impossible. The key implication being it's not going to happen. But according to Jesus many of us aren't getting in.Second, he also said "It still is possible with God".
Again, that's obviously not the riches he was talking about. Amd it would be silly. Increases in housing? He and his disciples were homeless beggars. It doesn't take much to get more than that. Having more brethren? How can that even possibly get twisted into the camel passing through the eye of a needle?Third, you never explained then why he proceeded to say to his disciple that increase was theirs.
He told his disciples to sell everything they own and give the money to the poor. Time and time and time again he taught and commanded giving to the poor and taking care of the poor. He was clearly against hoarding wealth and he strongly advocated for positions of self-inflicted poverty.Fourth, just exactly what was the message. Was it "don't be rich?" Was it, "don't trust money as the gateway for Heaven?" Was it, "be rich in good works?"
Much of the NT as a whole isn't consistent with the Tanahk.Fifth, "was his point consistent in the rest of his parables and the Torah?" (He was Jewish, you know)