Choose from these two options...

Obzocky said:

I was always under the assumption the majority of verses regarding rich individuals and their demise implied that there was nothing wrong with wealth, only in flaunting that wealth and loving money for being money rather than acknowledging it as a necessity in this world and seeing where it can go to make a difference.

Click to expand...

Mark 10:17-31 seems to be pretty clear that wealth is nothing but an obstacle in following Jesus but I'm no scholar.

Show Me The Money!
That is what my wife would say, because I would choose marriage.

acropolis said:

Mark 10:17-31 seems to be pretty clear that wealth is nothing but an obstacle in following Jesus but I'm no scholar.

Click to expand...

My reading of the passage is that the rich young ruler is trying to suck up to Jesus (calls him "good teacher", says he's kept all the commandments). Notice that Jesus didn't tell him to sell all of his stuff at first, it came only after the man tried to assert his own goodness. Jesus then wanted to show how impossible it is to be perfect by asking the man to do what few could do. This reading makes sense to me given how we see Jesus assert God's goodness of man's throughout the passage (vs. 18, 27). So giving up your wealth isn't a bad thing obviously, but notice it wasn't Jesus's first answer in regards to eternal life. But like you, I'm no scholar.

And then just using critical thinking, I don't see how wealth is inherently wrong. Jesus said nothing is unclean in and of itself and it's from man himself that evil comes. If that's the case, wealth is only bad when bad people use it for bad reasons.

That's a bit of a stretch to interpret it that way but if I've learned anything it's that any bit of scripture can mean whatever a person wishes it to. I can't imagine any circumstance which Jesus would approve of wealth, since it would always be better to give it away to those who need it than to keep it.

acropolis said:

Mark 10:17-31 seems to be pretty clear that wealth is nothing but an obstacle in following Jesus but I'm no scholar.

Click to expand...

But then what happens when we cross reference all mentions of wealth/money/riches in the ESV (or whichever version people prefer) ... some have a negative view, some neutral, some positive. The issue always seems to be the heart of the person, not the wealth itself.

Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

So if you have money, but routinely give it away to those who require it more than you, money is not so much of an issue. I always read that as implying those who hoard money without considering the good it could do for those without it are doing everything but helping their fellow man. Even then it is about people leaving everything to follow Jesus, if we read into it further the implication is not just that money is an issue but whether or not we are willing to give up everything for faith. Everything being their house, family and land.

Even 1 Timothy 6:9-11 is not so much about wealth as the desire for wealth:

But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

Then when I look at the verses which do mention wealth there is no real condemnation of wealth itself, but the desire for it, the unwillingness to part from it, forgetting that everything that happens is by the will of God and if you forget that then you shall be smote.

Deuteronomy 8:17-19 describes it as such:
Beware lest you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth.’ You shall remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day. And if you forget the Lord your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish.

So that implies wealth is something that comes/goes at the will of God, not that it is bad, not that it is good, just that our eraction to it.

Then in Genesis 26:12-14
And Isaac sowed in that land and reaped in the same year a hundredfold. The Lord blessed him, and the man became rich, and gained more and more until he became very wealthy. He had possessions of flocks and herds and many servants, so that the Philistines envied him.

The Lord blessed him to the point he was wealthy and envied. Richness, wealth, not a negative at this point in time.

2 Chronicles 1:7-13
In that night God appeared to Solomon, and said to him, “Ask what I shall give you.” And Solomon said to God, “You have shown great and steadfast love to David my father, and have made me king in his place. O Lord God, let your word to David my father be now fulfilled, for you have made me king over a people as numerous as the dust of the earth. Give me now wisdom and knowledge to go out and come in before this people, for who can govern this people of yours, which is so great?” God answered Solomon, “Because this was in your heart, and you have not asked for possessions, wealth, honor, or the life of those who hate you, and have not even asked for long life, but have asked for wisdom and knowledge for yourself that you may govern my people over whom I have made you king, wisdom and knowledge are granted to you. I will also give you riches, possessions, and honor, such as none of the kings had who were before you, and none after you shall have the like.” So Solomon came from the high place at Gibeon, from before the tent of meeting, to Jerusalem. And he reigned over Israel.

There was no desire for wealth, but it was given as a gift alongside other things due to the nature of his heart. At this point at least.

Ecclesiastes 5:8-20
If you see in a province the oppression of the poor and the violation of justice and righteousness, do not be amazed at the matter, for the high official is watched by a higher, and there are yet higher ones over them. But this is gain for a land in every way: a king committed to cultivated fields.

He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves wealth with his income; this also is vanity. When goods increase, they increase who eat them, and what advantage has their owner but to see them with his eyes? Sweet is the sleep of a laborer, whether he eats little or much, but the full stomach of the rich will not let him sleep.

There is a grievous evil that I have seen under the sun: riches were kept by their owner to his hurt, and those riches were lost in a bad venture. And he is father of a son, but he has nothing in his hand. As he came from his mother's womb he shall go again, naked as he came, and shall take nothing for his toil that he may carry away in his hand. This also is a grievous evil: just as he came, so shall he go, and what gain is there to him who toils for the wind? Moreover, all his days he eats in darkness in much vexation and sickness and anger.

Behold, what I have seen to be good and fitting is to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life that God has given him, for this is his lot. Everyone also to whom God has given wealth and possessions and power to enjoy them, and to accept his lot and rejoice in his toil—this is the gift of God. For he will not much remember the days of his life because God keeps him occupied with joy in his heart

Even here the issue seems to be more having wealth but not helping those less fortunate than wealth itself. The obstacle is, again, the person and not the items themselves. To lust after what you do not have and to do nothing but hoard it when you have it.

Sure, we could go into the Greek and really dissect the meanings of the word wealth in each scenario but i'm not enough of a scholar to do such a thing. Everything can be twisted to our own perceptions, but it is important to take the Bible as a whole and not just select passages because they fit the way we want them to. Everything points to the reactions of humans to having money and not the money itself, to hoarding, to refusing to acknowledge God and all of that stuff. Few verses condemn wealth and riches, only the actions of the people who have them.

Obzocky said:

But then what happens when we cross reference all mentions of wealth/money/riches in the ESV (or whichever version people prefer) ... some have a negative view, some neutral, some positive. The issue always seems to be the heart of the person, not the wealth itself.

Click to expand...

Thanks for writing that up, it was informative. From what I've read it just isn't possible to remain wealthy and still follow Christ since there will always be people more in need of that money and, as you've shown, there ought not to be desire for wealth in the follower's heart, so they will part with their money as if it were nothing to them.

I'm no longer a Christian but I still pick up the Gospels now and again because I love the radical approach to love which Jesus lays out. It's a beautiful way to live one's life; to die to one's own petty desire and constantly live for those around us.

I think I'd pick the trillion dollars. I'm not sure if I'll ever get married. I'm too young to think about marriage right now. I could do a lot with the money now, like pay off school loans.

acropolis said:

That's a bit of a stretch to interpret it that way

Click to expand...

Why?

The whole point of the passage at least to me seems to be on the impossibility of man being perfect or getting salvation alone (vs. 26-27). That's why Jesus emphasizes God's goodness when the man calls Him good.

I can't imagine any circumstance which Jesus would approve of wealth, since it would always be better to give it away to those who need it than to keep it.

Click to expand...

Just blindly throwing money around doesn’t seem wise to me. From what I can tell, most of the rich in Jesus’s day were rich due to political favors and the like, which explains His condemnation of tax collectors on several occasions. Wealth is important in production as entrepreneurs must under consume and save in order to take entrepreneurial risks. From what I’ve seen Jesus can be a lot of more practical than people give Him credit for.

And, as I said before, Jesus is mostly concerned with how we treat others; condemning them because of something they have doesn’t make sense to me. I know and know of wealthy people that are very charitable and, while I’m obviously in no position to judge, follow Jesus’s commandments on loving their neighbors.

Nilloc said:

Why?

The whole point of the passage at least to me seems to be on the impossibility of man being perfect or getting salvation alone (vs. 26-27). That's why Jesus emphasizes God's goodness when the man calls Him good.

Just blindly throwing money around doesn’t seem wise to me. From what I can tell, most of the rich in Jesus’s day were rich due to political favors and the like, which explains His condemnation of tax collectors on several occasions. Wealth is important in production as entrepreneurs must under consume and save in order to take entrepreneurial risks. From what I’ve seen Jesus can be a lot of more practical than people give Him credit for.

And, as I said before, Jesus is mostly concerned with how we treat others; condemning them because of something they have doesn’t make sense to me. I know and know of wealthy people that are very charitable and, while I’m obviously in no position to judge, follow Jesus’s commandments on loving their neighbors.

Click to expand...

Given the greater message of the Gospel it's difficult to imagine that Jesus cared much of anything for wealth or man's desire for it. It's even less likely to me that he would have much concern for the practical need of wealth to entrepreneurs. But in my reading the Gospels following Christ is a life pursuit which isn't compatible with a 9-5 and 2.5 kids, but is instead a radical departure from what we would generally consider the American dream.

acropolis said:

Given the greater message of the Gospel it's difficult to imagine that Jesus cared much of anything for wealth or man's desire for it. It's even less likely to me that he would have much concern for the practical need of wealth to entrepreneurs.

Click to expand...

So do you just think Jesus was incompetent and didn't realize not everyone could be unmarried and wandering around the countryside preaching? I sort of doubt that He did considering He stayed in plenty of peoples homes. Joseph of Arimathea was rich and is shown in a positive light in all four Gospel accounts. Luke even calls him a good and righteous man. Trying to extrapolate what Jesus thought about every single thing from the very small window we have into His life isn't a good idea. I believe the Gospels give us general principals to live by, but trying to live exactly as a Galilean carpenter did 2000 years ago doesn't follow from that, especially when His immediate disciples didn't do that or tell every single Christian that they had to either.

Also, people try far to often to romanticize the Bible to the point where it reads more like fiction than history (which is certainly true in some instances). But since I think most of the Gospels actually happened, I have to read it realistically, not the way we read Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings.

But in my reading the Gospels following Christ is a life pursuit which isn't compatible with a 9-5 and 2.5 kids, but is instead a radical departure from what we would generally consider the American dream.

Click to expand...

Then you're reading it too narrowly, much like the way fundamentalists read Paul. Jesus isn't trying to be the every man or fulfill every role that a person can have in a society.

Trillion dollars.

Nilloc said:

So do you just think Jesus was incompetent and didn't realize not everyone could be unmarried and wandering around the countryside preaching? I sort of doubt that He did considering He stayed in plenty of peoples homes. Joseph of Arimathea was rich and is shown in a positive light in all four Gospel accounts. Luke even calls him a good and righteous man. Trying to extrapolate what Jesus thought about every single thing from the very small window we have into His life isn't a good idea. I believe the Gospels give us general principals to live by, but trying to live exactly as a Galilean carpenter did 2000 years ago doesn't follow from that, especially when His immediate disciples didn't do that or tell every single Christian that they had to either.

Click to expand...

If you think Jesus would approve of holding wealth for one's own pleasure when there are others suffering for lack of money then I'm not sure we're reading the same Gospels.

Also, people try far to often to romanticize the Bible to the point where it reads more like fiction than history (which is certainly true in some instances). But since I think most of the Gospels actually happened, I have to read it realistically, not the way we read Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings.

Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about. If you sincerely believe that Jesus is literally your lord and savior, to by whom you shall by judged for all eternity, then why aren't you taking it more seriously? If you're tacitly scrubbing the Gospels of everything that seems too bothersome or 'romantic', perhaps even the miracles which make it seem to ahistorical and more like The Lord of the Rings than you'd prefer, perhaps you'd better reexamine just why it is you still remain a Christian. You can just drop it and be a pure Objectivist or whatever it is that is currently taking precedence over Christianity.

Then you're reading it too narrowly, much like the way fundamentalists read Paul. Jesus isn't trying to be the every man or fulfill every role that a person can have in a society.

Click to expand...

Not everyone can be a transient mystic, but everyone should endeavor to be as humble and self-denying as possible if they claim to follow Christ. Hoarding wealth of any kind would go against this.

I've little respect for the contemporary Christianity Lite that offers mostly platitudes in exchange for occasionally speaking some words and thinking some Jesus-related thoughts. There's no depth to it. It is, in Bonhoeffer's word, cheap grace. It's become just another self-help program that promises to make you feel better without ever getting in the way of whatever it is people want.

Nilloc said:

Thanks for that non-argument, and for ignoring everything I said. I know Joseph of Armathea is kind of inconvenient for you. It shows that neither Jesus nor the Gospel writers saw wealth as inherently bad, just how it’s used.

Click to expand...

Wealth is basically by definition superfluous money. There is no legitimate reason to hold on to it when there are so many needs to be addressed by giving it away.

Because I’m not a conservative constantly living in fear God’s wrath. And I am taking it more seriously. I take it so seriously I don’t reduce Jesus to a simpleton who just spouted off a list of do’s and don’ts like many, yourself included, want to make Him.

Click to expand...

Putting others before yourself and having a total disregard for the value of wealth is pretty basic stuff in the Gospels. If you're throwing that out then I suspect you've reduced the Gospels to something too vague to be of any meaning or use.

So do you think Jesus was being literal in Matt. 5:38, Luke 14:26, etc.? Jesus obviously uses hyperbole, which people conveniently forget whenever wanting to prove their favorite doctrine. I don’t blindly pick out verses to support my position; I look at Jesus overall approach and whom He was addressing. Take what Jesus said about divorce. I don’t think He was saying that even a battered wife couldn’t divorce her husband because he didn’t cheat on her. Jesus was probably addressing the easy divorce of the Pharisees, who thought it was okay to divorce of any reason.

Given how much Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their legalistic interpretation of the Torah, do you really think it wise to read Him in the same way? As I once heard it said, Jesus taught principles, not rules.

Please continue to flaunt your ignorance, I’m enjoying it.

Click to expand...

Oh I think Jesus would have accepted you giving other items than those specified, but the message must be taken seriously: give to a radical degree even if it means you suffer for it, even to your enemies. If you're ignoring the heart of that passage then why bother with Christianity at all? What is the point?

Right, yeah I know, you feel able to switch between a literal and metaphoric interpretation whenever it's useful in order to protect those doctrines you feel are of more importance. Like I said, scripture means whatever people want it to with the right interpretation. It carries no force or authority.

So at first you said to follow Jesus you can’t have anything, now it’s doing it as much as possible. Interesting change.

Click to expand...

Just a misunderstanding on your part. Wealth is usually understood to mean assets above and beyond what a person needs to survive. You don't call a few dollars in the pocket of a homeless person 'wealth', after all.

I don’t disagree, but condemning wealth as inherently evil is just as dumb as the Pharisees thinking food was inherently unclean.

Click to expand...

There's simply no justification for retaining any kind of wealth if you take Christ seriously. It cannot ever be better to give one's self luxuries while other people suffer for lack of essentials. One of only twelve times Jesus mentions 'hell' is in the parable of the Sheep and Goats, where he commands his followers to treat those in need as if they were Christ himself. That is powerful language that no amount of loose interpretation can avoid. Not that anyone actually takes it seriously, but it's there anyway.

2:11 Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought , and on the labour that I had laboured to do : and, behold, all [was] vanity and vexation of spirit, and [there was] no profit under the sun.

4:6 Better [is] an handful [with] quietness, than both the hands full [with] travail and vexation of spirit.

4:8 There is one [alone], and [there is] not a second; yea, he hath neither child nor brother: yet [is there] no end of all his labour; neither is his eye satisfied with riches; neither [saith he], For whom do I labour, and bereave my soul of good? This [is] also vanity, yea, it [is] a sore travail.

Oh wow, this was meant to be a simple poll, now it's turned into a money is evil debate.

Ariadne_GR said:

Oh wow, this was meant to be a simple poll, now it's turned into a money is evil debate.

Click to expand...

Heaven forbid we have a meaningful discussion here once in a while.

acropolis said:

Heaven forbid we have a meaningful discussion here once in a while.

Click to expand...

There goes the neighborhood.

acropolis said:

Wealth is basically by definition superfluous money.

Click to expand...

No it isn’t. Money is a medium of exchange; wealth has to be produced.

acropolis said:

There is no legitimate reason to hold on to it when there are so many needs to be addressed by giving it away.

Click to expand...

Just throwing money around doesn’t really change anything. You really must think Jesus was just too dumb to use some common sense. Wealth can be used in production to make goods in services for the poor to use. No wealth, no goods or services. It also works as an incentive for entrepreneurs to take risks in the first place, meaning both the consumers (including the poor) and wealthy benefit.

And who is defining poor here? Compared to the rest of the world, even most poor Americans are filthy rich. That’s the problem with using vague generalities like “rich” and “poor” to come up with some absolutist position on it.

acropolis said:

Putting others before yourself and having a total disregard for the value of wealth is pretty basic stuff in the Gospels. If you're throwing that out then I suspect you've reduced the Gospels to something too vague to be of any meaning or use.

Click to expand...

Just keep throwing this out there; I’m sure it’ll work sometime. It seems to me you’ve reduced common sense and critical thinking to the point that it has no use for you. Unlike you and fundamentalists, I actually, ya know, think when reading the Bible. And don’t use the same method of exegesis as the Pharisees.

acropolis said:

Oh I think Jesus would have accepted you giving other items than those specified, but the message must be taken seriously: give to a radical degree even if it means you suffer for it, even to your enemies. If you're ignoring the heart of that passage then why bother with Christianity at all? What is the point?

Click to expand...

I never said anything against giving or charity; far from it. I’m arguing against wealth being inherently wrong. It is possible to be wealthy and charitable, ya know. What you’re doing is no different than saying all first century Pharisees are evil, hypocritical, etc., just because Jesus was condemning certain Pharisees. Or like the divorce example I gave. Blindly following the Gospels without context or critical thinking is no virtue.

acropolis said:

Right, yeah I know, you feel able to switch between a literal and metaphoric interpretation whenever it's useful in order to protect those doctrines you feel are of more importance. Like I said, scripture means whatever people want it to with the right interpretation. It carries no force or authority.

Click to expand...

As mainline Protestant, scriptural authority means something different to me than from evangelicals. But once again, thanks for ignoring my points and being as vague as the doctrine you’re asserting.

acropolis said:

Just a misunderstanding on your part. Wealth is usually understood to mean assets above and beyond what a person needs to survive.

Click to expand...

But the passage you quoted Jesus said to sell all of one’s possessions. And since we’re not allowed to think or examine the context, we have to give away every single thing we have. See, even you aren’t taking an absolutist view because you know how ridiculous it would be.

acropolis said:

You don't call a few dollars in the pocket of a homeless person 'wealth', after all.

Click to expand...

People in Africa would.

acropolis said:

There's simply no justification for retaining any kind of wealth if you take Christ seriously. It cannot ever be better to give one's self luxuries while other people suffer for lack of essentials.

Click to expand...

This is the typical left-wing misunderstanding about what wealth is. They view it as a pie, so that if someone has a lot, someone else by definition has less. That’s not the case. Wealth can be created. I can take a pile of wood and make it into furniture or a house and no one is losing anything; in fact it’s mutually beneficial to both the consumer and myself. Most Americans live quite comfortably compared to the rest of the world. That’s because we live in an industrial economy where we produce a lot and thus most people are relatively wealth. While giving to others is certainly important, just giving them money doesn’t end poverty. That’s just common sense. I actually care about ending poverty and actually cutting out the tumor, not just suppressing and never doing anything else.

acropolis said:

One of only twelve times Jesus mentions 'hell' is in the parable of the Sheep and Goats, where he commands his followers to treat those in need as if they were Christ himself. That is powerful language that no amount of loose interpretation can avoid.

Click to expand...

Still doesn’t say anything about wealth. Again, wealth and charity are not mutually exclusive. They certainly can be especially when most of the people in Jesus day often got wealth due to political favors. But as I pointed out (and you still ignore) you can have “good and righteous” (Luke 23:50) rich men to.

acropolis said:

Not that anyone actually takes it seriously, but it's there anyway.

Click to expand...

I know plenty of Christians who take that seriously. People at my church, for example. And most of them work hard and have well-paying jobs. But as I said, continue to live in ignorance, if that’s what makes you feel better.

Nilloc said:

No it isn’t. Money is a medium of exchange; wealth has to be produced.

Click to expand...

Pretend I said 'assets' then. Wealth is that additional amount of valued items, in whatever form, which is beyond what you need.

Just throwing money around doesn’t really change anything. You really must think Jesus was just too dumb to use some common sense. Wealth can be used in production to make goods in services for the poor to use. No wealth, no goods or services. It also works as an incentive for entrepreneurs to take risks in the first place, meaning both the consumers (including the poor) and wealthy benefit.

And who is defining poor here? Compared to the rest of the world, even most poor Americans are filthy rich. That’s the problem with using vague generalities like “rich” and “poor” to come up with some absolutist position on it.

Click to expand...

Giving money to those who need it isn't 'throwing it around', it's addressing human need. If wealth is anathema in Christianity, but necessary for a specific mode of economics, that might tell you something about the ethics of that that economic system...

Not strictly defining the rich and poor is exactly how you avoid absolutism, actually. Fortunately there are passages to help narrow your focus, you even quoted some of them previously. Whomever has a need which you can fulfill, that's to whom you should give whatever you can spare, and even beyond.

Just keep throwing this out there; I’m sure it’ll work sometime. It seems to me you’ve reduced common sense and critical thinking to the point that it has no use for you. Unlike you and fundamentalists, I actually, ya know, think when reading the Bible. And don’t use the same method of exegesis as the Pharisees.

Click to expand...

What you call common sense and critical thinking is just lazily preferring your economic doctrine over your religion. It's what nearly everyone does, but as they say, the path is narrow and few will find it. You interpret scripture in whatever way fits what you would like to be true. It has no authority for you.

I never said anything against giving or charity; far from it. I’m arguing against wealth being inherently wrong. It is possible to be wealthy and charitable, ya know. What you’re doing is no different than saying all first century Pharisees are evil, hypocritical, etc., just because Jesus was condemning certain Pharisees. Or like the divorce example I gave. Blindly following the Gospels without context or critical thinking is no virtue.

Click to expand...

If Jesus had intended for people to be wealthy but occasionally give a bit here and there he probably would have said exactly that rather than consistently calling for a more radical form of charity. He could have said anything at all including saying exactly what you're saying now, such that it would be clear without any need to rely on metaphor. But he didn't, and instead you find yourself having to constantly find a way to interpret his words differently from their most obvious meaning. It's not as if this is Revelation, either; the Gospels are written in almost entirely clear language. Perhaps he said what he said because he actually meant it?

But the passage you quoted Jesus said to sell all of one’s possessions. And since we’re not allowed to think or examine the context, we have to give away every single thing we have. See, even you aren’t taking an absolutist view because you know how ridiculous it would be.

Click to expand...

It's perfectly possible to give away literally every single thing you own. It involves living in community. It's a radical form of life, but Jesus blazed a radical path. I suspect living in cooperation was the intended way of living according to Christ since it's the only way to actually do as he commands. If communal living is off-limits, then at the very least they should dispense with their superfluous assets--their wealth--immediately.

People in Africa would.

Click to expand...

We should definitely be giving more money to Africa, in addition to forgiving their debts, but I'm not sure why you mention that here.

This is the typical left-wing misunderstanding about what wealth is. They view it as a pie, so that if someone has a lot, someone else by definition has less. That’s not the case. Wealth can be created. I can take a pile of wood and make it into furniture or a house and no one is losing anything; in fact it’s mutually beneficial to both the consumer and myself. Most Americans live quite comfortably compared to the rest of the world. That’s because we live in an industrial economy where we produce a lot and thus most people are relatively wealth. While giving to others is certainly important, just giving them money doesn’t end poverty. That’s just common sense. I actually care about ending poverty and actually cutting out the tumor, not just suppressing and never doing anything else.

Click to expand...

And once wealth is created it should be given to others for someone who follows Christ. You're putting your politics and economics in front of Jesus which can't be a good idea.

Still doesn’t say anything about wealth. Again, wealth and charity are not mutually exclusive. They certainly can be especially when most of the people in Jesus day often got wealth due to political favors. But as I pointed out (and you still ignore) you can have “good and righteous” (Luke 23:50) rich men to.

Click to expand...

I don't think you've spent even a single moment to reflect on what it would mean to treat those in need as if they were Christ himself. That is a tremendously powerful phrase. He even anticipated people complaining about it! But but but Jesus where were the poor? How do define poor??? And it's clear how moved he is by their excuses. I'm sure he'll be impressed with yours, though.

I know plenty of Christians who take that seriously. People at my church, for example. And most of them work hard and have well-paying jobs. But as I said, continue to live in ignorance, if that’s what makes you feel better.

Click to expand...

I know a few people who really follow Christ. They are of many religions and beliefs and none of them are rich in anything but social capital. It's my sincere hope that I can cover my debt and check out of the rat race in time to experience the life they lead.

Most Christians are luke-warm fair-weather types that put politics and their own comfort before Christ. Most people alive of any religion or non-religion just sorta plod along and do mostly what they want, and occasionally do something good if it makes them feel better. It's not unusual but it is certainly tragic.