What should you do with your millions?

[Moral Orel]

Christians should live generously and not miserly but they aren't required to be penniless and destitute, living like a beggar or vagabond.

I never said anyone did. I said one has to stop being rich. This thread bypasses that whole grey area around where "being rich" starts by asking "what should Christians do with their millions?" If someone is sitting on two million dollars, then one is too selfish to get into Heaven.

Jesus' words in Matthew are to a particular rich man

That's not accurate. He did give specific instructions to one particular rich man, however it was after the rich man went away sad that Jesus addressed the rest of the people there with his metaphor that illustrates the impossibility of rich folk getting into Heaven.

Where exactly is the line? I dunno, I don't care to try and define something specific either. But we all know the difference between basic comforts and luxuries. Folks don't need new cell phones every year. Folks don't need to go out to eat or out to the movies. Folks don't need cable. etc. Plenty of folks lead entirely comfortable lives without any of these things. If someone spends his money to enjoy luxuries while knowing that he could spend it to help someone else not starve, he's selfish.

That isn't a judgement really, I'm selfish, and I'm not concerned about it. Let's just not pretend it isn't exactly what it looks like. And to be totally frank, if there is a Heaven, then Christians who try to rationalize their selfish behavior, instead of just helping folks, ain't getting in. They'll be in the other place with me.

 

[FireDragon76]

I never said anyone did. I said one has to stop being rich. This thread bypasses that whole grey area around where "being rich" starts by asking "what should Christians do with their millions?" If someone is sitting on two million dollars, then one is too selfish to get into Heaven.


That's not accurate. He did give specific instructions to one particular rich man, however it was after the rich man went away sad that Jesus addressed the rest of the people there with his metaphor that illustrates the impossibility of rich folk getting into Heaven.

He says it's possible, but only with God's doing. The rich man asked what he must do to get into heaven, implying that heaven is merely an earned reward for good behavior, which is something Christians do not believe and Jesus did not teach.

 

[Astrid]

I never said anyone did. I said one has to stop being rich. This thread bypasses that whole grey area around where "being rich" starts by asking "what should Christians do with their millions?" If someone is sitting on two million dollars, then one is too selfish to get into Heaven.


That's not accurate. He did give specific instructions to one particular rich man, however it was after the rich man went away sad that Jesus addressed the rest of the people there with his metaphor that illustrates the impossibility of rich folk getting into Heaven.

Where exactly is the line? I dunno, I don't care to try and define something specific either. But we all know the difference between basic comforts and luxuries. Folks don't need new cell phones every year. Folks don't need to go out to eat or out to the movies. Folks don't need cable. etc. Plenty of folks lead entirely comfortable lives without any of these things. If someone spends his money to enjoy luxuries while knowing that he could spend it to help someone else not starve, he's selfish.

That isn't a judgement really, I'm selfish, and I'm not concerned about it. Let's just not pretend it isn't exactly what it looks like. And to be totally frank, if there is a Heaven, then Christians who try to rationalize their selfish behavior, instead of just helping folks, ain't getting in. They'll be in the other place with me.

Who "sits" on their money?
My cash reserve is in the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank,
where it is loaned out, working.

Society grinds to a halt without money for loans.

Thr great majority of my money is deep in investments
where it's not easy to access, even if I thought it a good
idea to cash out and start passing money around.

Projects I help fund provide employment. It rolls
over into bigger things. That, in essence is how
HK went from somefishing shacks to this ( see below).

You figure that is selfish, and know a better
way to bring a better life to more people?

Google Image Result for https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/i1J1zNsTIFHA/v2/1200x-1.jpg

 

[Whyayeman]

You don't agree with Christ at all, nor can you even begin to understand it. Christianity is not an Egalitarian religion and there is room for those who are well off and will serve God. Look at Abraham, the father of our faith or Lydia who lent her home and resources for the upbuilding of the Church.

I know you don't like the idea of Christians having wealth, but we are allowed to. We will just be held to account for how we used it our lives. So yeah, there's no compromising with God here. Only you presuming to think you understand God, which as an unbeliever you don't.

Also, you are teh enemy if you recommend evil advice to Christians and pretend to speak for Christ.

According to St Matthew 19 there is no wiggle room for the rich. They are to give away all they have. I do not subscribe to this, of course; this is something we have in common.

I do not think there is a God, so I make no pretence of 'understanding' but I do think I understand the language of St Matthew's Gospel. I am interested in why American millionaires proliferate despite the message of poverty there. So far I don't believe it has been fully addressed.

Your last point: I have never pretended to 'speak for Christ'. There are, no doubt, numerous posts which do, but not mine.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

According to St Matthew 19 there is no wiggle room for the rich. They are to give away all they have. I do not subscribe to this, of course; this is something we have in common.

I do not think there is a God, so I make no pretence of 'understanding' but I do think I understand the language of St Matthew's Gospel. I am interested in why American millionaires proliferate despite the message of poverty there. So far I don't believe it has been fully addressed.

Your last point: I have never pretended to 'speak for Christ'. There are, no doubt, numerous posts which do, but not mine.

Well you have pretended to speak for Christ when you present Jesus as demanding all Christians be poor. That was not even the case in the early Church, since there were rich Christians who funded local Churches and provided resources. How do you think the Apostles managed to travel? Or how Paul managed to write his own Epistles? Or the fact that the New Testament exists at all? That requires capital and the rich converts were essential for building up the Church.

Jesus in Matthew 19 is not saying it's impossible for the rich, only that it's harder for them to escape the temptation riches often come with. It's what you do with your money, not what having the money that's the point. The Rich man is not the same as the man who has given up everything, the latter has done something totally self-sacrificial, but the former is no less a Christian. The celibate is higher than the married, but the married is no less a Christian and have their place in the Church. It's called hierarchy, each person has their place.

As to why there are those who are poverty stricken. In the current age, one factor is the increased laziness of people, who would rather beg on the streets than work a minimum paying job and receiving a pittance from the gov. At least in my own case in NZ.

 

[Whyayeman]

Well you have pretended to speak for Christ when you present Jesus as demanding all Christians be poor. That was not even the case in the early Church, since there were rich Christians who funded local Churches and provided resources. How do you think the Apostles managed to travel? Or how Paul managed to write his own Epistles? Or the fact that the New Testament exists at all? That requires capital and the rich converts were essential for building up the Church.

Jesus in Matthew 19 is not saying it's impossible for the rich, only that it's harder for them to escape the temptation riches often come with. It's what you do with your money, not what having the money that's the point. The Rich man is not the same as the man who has given up everything, the latter has done something totally self-sacrificial, but the former is no less a Christian. The celibate is higher than the married, but the married is no less a Christian and have their place in the Church. It's called hierarchy, each person has their place.

As to why there are those who are poverty stricken. In the current age, one factor is the increased laziness of people, who would rather beg on the streets than work a minimum paying job and receiving a pittance from the gov. At least in my own case in NZ.

Well you have pretended to speak for Christ when you present Jesus as demanding all Christians be poor.

I think that rather misrepresents me. But my reading of the verse is that to get to Heaven the rich should give their wealth away. As you have pointed out, in the early days of the Church the rich actually did give money away to build and support the Church. I can quite see how the Evangelists relied on the charity of the people they met. Maybe this an example of rich people giving away their wealth, accepting the hard lesson offered by St Matthew.

Jesus in Matthew 19 is not saying it's impossible for the rich, only that it's harder for them...

I don't agree there. It is a very hard message, I know, but I cannot see any wiggle room. They must give their money away to get into Heaven. I know too that many rich people are charitable; some spectacularly.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Well you have pretended to speak for Christ when you present Jesus as demanding all Christians be poor.

I think that rather misrepresents me. But my reading of the verse is that to get to Heaven the rich should give their wealth away. As you have pointed out, in the early days of the Church the rich actually did give money away to build and support the Church. I can quite see how the Evangelists relied on the charity of the people they met. Maybe this an example of rich people giving away their wealth, accepting the hard lesson offered by St Matthew.

Jesus in Matthew 19 is not saying it's impossible for the rich, only that it's harder for them...

I don't agree there. It is a very hard message, I know, but I cannot see any wiggle room. They must give their money away to get into Heaven. I know too that many rich people are charitable; some spectacularly.

You have pretended to speak for Christ. Own it and say that you understand Jesus better than all Christians throughout history. I will note the verse in question Jesus says what the rich man must do to be perfect, not what he must do to enter heaven. That seems to have been answered by the rich man's first question and his answer to Jesus that he had done the initial things Jesus pointed out. He honoured his mother and father, did not kill and did not steal.

But this cynical attempt of yours to come off as understanding is incredibly irritating. The Rich in all cases did not give all their riches away in the New Testament. That seems to have been a model for some early communities but we only see one instance of it. Philemon still owned slaves, which implies property and capital. Lydia likely still owned her property. Used by the Church no doubt but it's fairly clear that common ownership of all was not a universally expected practice. By the end of the first century it seems to have fallen out of favour.

You don't see any other reading because you're so adamant on a fundamentalist interpretation, which insists on the most extreme application of a text without care for what it actually means. I was just reading Saint John Chrysostom's (a man not partial to the rich and wealth) commentary on Matthew 19 and he points out that the Rich man was utterly sincere in approach to Christ, that money is a snare but it itself is not the cause of evil in of itself. Money is merely a representation of worth and value after all.

Being charitable in of itself I would say isn't even a good thing. Especially if you don't know what that money is being used for. It would be better to have an understanding of what it is you are funding and how it is being used than to give away money to some charity claiming to do good. The rich have their place in Christianity and you don't decide whether they inherit eternal life. God does.

 

[Whyayeman]

But this cynical attempt of yours to come off as understanding is incredibly irritating.

But I don't understand. I haven't suggested that I understand. I am not interpreting the Gospel; you have quoted St John Chrysostom who is unabashedly putting a gloss on the words of St Matthew. It has occurred to me that Chrysotom was not there. (Then again, neither was St Matthew, according to some Christian scholars.)

Here is my original post:

The Gospels claim: 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'

According to number of american millionaires at DuckDuckGo there are more than 15 million American millionaire households.

I dare say some of them post here. Are they condemned to be denied entry to the 'Kingdom of God'? Or is there another route to Heaven for the rich?

I am asking two questions. The answer to the first appears to be 'no'. I have found that difficult to reconcile with the Gospel of St Matthew - and I think other posters have found it a little tricky too. I don't blame them. It is a big ask.

Is there another route to Heaven? Not for me obviously, but I am interested in what Christians think could be an alternative to poverty. So far, the main response has been that the Gospel didn't mean quite what it said. It looks like a bit of a cop-out from here.

 

[Moral Orel]

He says it's possible, but only with God's doing. The rich man asked what he must do to get into heaven, implying that heaven is merely an earned reward for good behavior, which is something Christians do not believe and Jesus did not teach.

Who "sits" on their money?
My cash reserve is in the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank,
where it is loaned out, working.

Society grinds to a halt without money for loans.

Thr great majority of my money is deep in investments
where it's not easy to access, even if I thought it a good
idea to cash out and start passing money around.

Projects I help fund provide employment. It rolls
over into bigger things. That, in essence is how
HK went from somefishing shacks to this ( see below).

You figure that is selfish, and know a better
way to bring a better life to more people?

Since neither of you even touched on my claims about indulging in luxuries, I'm going to take that as implied agreement, and be content.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

But I don't understand. I haven't suggested that I understand. I am not interpreting the Gospel; you have quoted St John Chrysostom who is unabashedly putting a gloss on the words of St Matthew. It has occurred to me that Chrysotom was not there. (Then again, neither was St Matthew, according to some Christian scholars.)

Here is my original post:

You are interpreting scripture, badly and cynically, but you are interpreting it. If you don't understand or accept this reading of scripture, explain why. Why did the early Church allow rich people to join instead of shunning them? Were they not in a position to know given their proximity to the Apostles who were taught and given authority directly by Jesus?

I am asking two questions. The answer to the first appears to be 'no'. I have found that difficult to reconcile with the Gospel of St Matthew - and I think other posters have found it a little tricky too. I don't blame them. It is a big ask.

Is there another route to Heaven? Not for me obviously, but I am interested in what Christians think could be an alternative to poverty. So far, the main response has been that the Gospel didn't mean quite what it said. It looks like a bit of a cop-out from here.

The response has been there is more to it than you care to imagine. It has already been pointed out to you that to enter heaven Jesus said to follow the commandments. Which the rich man said he had done and Jesus did not say he had not kept those commandments. Yet he still lacked something. Jesus gives him then the advice which would make him perfect, to abandon everything and follow him. We have no knowledge of what happened to the rich man after this but I am not going to presume to know his fate or apply it to all people everywhere. Some are called to be rich and serve in that fashion. Life for the Christian is not to be in a single peasant caste.

Not all Christians are 'perfect,' some are more faithful than others and adhere to the Gospel more purely, although all are ultimately sinners dependent on God. This is why not everyone is a canonized Saint. Saints live exceptional lives and are recognized as such. That's the part of the Gospel which emphasizes grace, even to sinners.

If you can't accept this, then you aren't cut out to be a Christian.

 

[Astrid]

Since neither of you even touched on my claims about indulging in luxuries, I'm going to take that as implied agreement, and be content.

I predicted you would not respond to what I said
RE your claim of selfishness, and sure enough.
As for the childish bit about implied agreement, Ha.

 

[jayem]

Manage the money wisely first so that you don't fritter it away. Take care of your family, the Church and those closest to you second. Third make wise investments. Finally set aside a certain amount for uplifting others yourself, do not give it to a charity organization you are not absolutely sure will use that money for an intended purpose.

I’m not a religious believer, so contributing to a church isn’t on my radar. (Though I have donated furniture and little-used household items to the Salvation Army.) But everything else you posted is absolutely spot on. Especially this:

Manage the money wisely first so that you don't fritter it away.

If at all possible, live below your means. Try to save a portion of your income every month. And learn about the financial markets and how to invest your savings wisely, and still get a decent return. Most folks work hard for their money. They should know that the time will come when they’ll need that money to work for them.

 

[Whyayeman]

You are interpreting scripture, badly and cynically, but you are interpreting it.

I think that might be flaming, but I won't report it. I am not being cynical. Please do not repeat that assertion.

Some are called to be rich and serve in that fashion. Life for the Christian is not to be in a single peasant caste.

I agree that rich people can be good and charitable. Under the rule of the Romans when this event was reported there was certainly no single peasant caste, even for the subjugated Israelites and British peoples. Nor since. Nor do I think that the Gospels demanded it. I am just puzzled by the strange historical fact of American wealth sitting alongside sincere American Christianity. It is an uncomfortable fit. St Matthew seems to have got it right. (Whoops! Do you still think I am interpreting the Gospel?)

 

[Moral Orel]

As for the childish bit about implied agreement, Ha.

I predicted you would not respond to what I said about indulging in luxuries, and sure enough.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I agree that rich people can be good and charitable. Under the rule of the Romans when this event was reported there was certainly no single peasant caste, even for the subjugated Israelites and British peoples. Nor since. Nor do I think that the Gospels demanded it. I am just puzzled by the strange historical fact of American wealth sitting alongside sincere American Christianity. It is an uncomfortable fit. St Matthew seems to have got it right. (Whoops! Do you still think I am interpreting the Gospel?)

If the issue isn't the Gospel but rather American Christianity and some of the problems therein then that's a different issue. American Christianity is dominated by the American ethos which has rooted itself in the idea of endless capitalism and the idea that we can consume endlessly without thinking about the effects it has on our lives. The pious rich or well off within Christian history would often incorporate into their lives strict rules of discipline in order to remind themselves of what it actually meant to be a Christian. I think of someone like Thomas More, who wore a hair shirt, he was a well off man being the Lord chancellor of England. I also recall there was an East Roman Ruler who slept on the floor instead of his luxurious bed. I couldn't imagine many average American going through discipline, nor could I imagine any western person being up for such self-restraint. We are all inebriated in the atmosphere of decadence and as such it has corrupted large segments of Christianity. Myself included.

Jesus did get it right, it's you who gets it wrong and think the idea is to get rid of all wealth. It's a bitterly cynical interpretation which posits that money itself, or value itself is the problem that must be gotten rid of, instead of understood and regulated within carefully thought out rules. I'm glad we have the example of men who gave up everything to live for God, like Saint Anthony, but not everyone should be like St Anthony.

 

[Astrid]

I predicted you would not respond to what I said about indulging in luxuries, and sure enough.

Good reminder why I usually ignore your
posts.
And most of the complaints that I am selfish.

 

[Whyayeman]

I agree on the whole with the first paragraph above #75. My post, you will recall was about millionaires in America. But my issue is not that the Gospel got it wrong - or right - but that Christians have been prone to a selective interpretation of the Gospel over the matter of wealth, usually to find a way out of the stricture to the rich to give their money away. Look back through this thread and see the wriggling!

It isn't just St Matthew, by the way. St Luke: Blessed are you poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God.

Jesus did get it right, it's you who gets it wrong and think the idea is to get rid of all wealth. It's a bitterly cynical interpretation which posits that money itself, or value itself is the problem that must be gotten rid of, instead of understood and regulated within carefully thought out rules. I'm glad we have the example of men who gave up everything to live for God, like Saint Anthony, but not everyone should be like St Anthony.

As to this, I am happy to be shown to be wrong. I do not consider that I have interpreted - or misinterpreted - that verse. I think that some Christians have, to their material advantage. Once again, I am not being cynical; I am being sincere. The richest nation on Earth is very comfortable with a disproportionate share of the world's wealth, and that sits badly with professions of Christianity.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I agree on the whole with the first paragraph above #75. My post, you will recall was about millionaires in America. But my issue is not that the Gospel got it wrong - or right - but that Christians have been prone to a selective interpretation of the Gospel over the matter of wealth, usually to find a way out of the stricture to the rich to give their money away. Look back through this thread and see the wriggling!

It isn't just St Matthew, by the way. St Luke: Blessed are you poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God.

Except there is no selective interpretation. There is an interpretation which takes into account the whole of scripture and is not as extreme as yours. Yours being particularly cynical because it ignores what the Church actually did and how these verses have been interpreted by the lives lived by the Apostles.

Do we live according to your interpretation of the Lord's words? Cynical and petty? Or according to the interpretation of the saints? The latter.

As to this, I am happy to be shown to be wrong. I do not consider that I have interpreted - or misinterpreted - that verse. I think that some Christians have, to their material advantage. Once again, I am not being cynical; I am being sincere. The richest nation on Earth is very comfortable with a disproportionate share of the world's wealth, and that sits badly with professions of Christianity.

You are wrong and you're not sincere on this subject. You simply deny the Christian explanation and insist on your own. Which you are free to do, but clearly your atheist interpretation of Christ is false. As has been demonstrated.

 

[FireDragon76]

I agree on the whole with the first paragraph above #75. My post, you will recall was about millionaires in America. But my issue is not that the Gospel got it wrong - or right - but that Christians have been prone to a selective interpretation of the Gospel over the matter of wealth, usually to find a way out of the stricture to the rich to give their money away. Look back through this thread and see the wriggling!

There is no stricture in Christianity to live as a pauper or for the rich to give their money away. The Bible also doesn't teach that. For instance, both Jesus and Paul's ministry depended on wealthy donors.

It isn't just St Matthew, by the way. St Luke: Blessed are you poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God.

That doesn't mean the only people who are accepted into the Kingdom, in Jesus mind, were rich. Jesus was pronouncing blessings on people that the average Judean inhabitant at the time would not think were objects of blessing. He's seeking out the marginalized in his society to draw them back into a sense of "the beloved community", but he's not excluding rich people in the process.

Mary Magdalene in particular was someone of wealth within his inner circle. All scholars agree on that.

The richest nation on Earth is very comfortable with a disproportionate share of the world's wealth, and that sits badly with professions of Christianity.

Is that due to being Christian, or in spite of it? America's Christianity is a mile wide and an inch deep, and ever since the 1960's, there's been an increasing secular trend in this country. Ronald Reagan, the guy that popularized austerity in the US, wasn't even a churchgoer.

 

[Moral Orel]

Good reminder why I usually ignore your
posts.

You had already ignored half of my post, next time go all the way.

And most of the complaints that I am selfish.

I ain't complaining. I only said to own it.