Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
How about you make $300,000 and give away $277,000Willie T said:Let's see........ Should I make $25,000 a year, and give all I possibly can (maybe $2,000 a year, tops) to the poor...... ......or should I make $300,000 a year, and give $100,000 a year to the poor? The rest going to educate my own family so that they can continue to make good money to, likewise, share with poorer people for generations to come? The math is pretty easy to figure...... even with no education.
Just to make sure everyone is clear, I am not asking if having nice things is bad and I am not saying that having nice things is bad. I'm asking why a Christian want nice things. If we truly believe that giving and living out our faith is the key to happiness... Then why not just do that? OOOHH because God doesn't say we shouldn't have nice stuff blah blah blah.. But WHY would we want nice clothes and what not? If we know that luxury isn't exactly what makes us happy or helps us serve God.. Then why even care about it? Why not just focus on working that job and serving other people? We say we don't find happiness in objects, yet we still buy them. Even if we don't idolize or strive for those items.. Why even bother with them?
Anyone notice that in the case of annanias and saphira they had the option to keep any part or all of the proceeds of their land. It was the boast of their generosity that seemed to be the problem.....
This seems to be the central line of approach, in your response. So, forgive me if I ignore the extraneous matter.
Firstly, I have deliberately kept my definitions qualitative, rather than quantitative. As you have yourself previously pointed out, the cost of living varies with geography. So, clearly, no one number will do. Nevertheless, my definitions are not quite as vague as you pretend; we all know what is meant by dignity, and it does not include the necessity to beg on city streets, for example. And the condition I put in brackets, which you seem not to have noticed, that reasonable dignity should be limited to a quality of life that one could realistically wish for everyone, adds a touch of egalitarian rigour.
Despite your objections, I think we all know also what is meant by excessive wealth, and it is wealth in excess of one's justifiable needs. These needs may indeed involve the occasional luxury indulgence, but it clearly does not include an entire lifetime of such indulgence.
The fact that I am asking people to make judgements in respect of these matters seems to bother you, but the reality is, unless one practises arriving at moral judgements, one is never going to get any better at making them. And, in respect of wealth, in this unequal, unfair world, we surely need to.
Mostly, when I get on my soapbox about this issue, people object for one of two reasons. Either they are rich, and want to stay rich, or they are not rich, and want to become so. I am simply suggesting that neither of these are acceptable ambitions from an ethical (and therefore Christian) point of view, given the state of the world we jointly and severally inhabit.
To be clear, my objection is not with an assertion that we should look after the poor among us.
References, please.
If you can't see the immorality of being wealthy while people starve, well, I despair of your moral judgement, in return. What is more, you seem to think that people should enjoy (indeed, delight in) that wealth despite the unmet needs of the needy. This is like adding insult to injury. Not only are you going to let the poor starve, you are going to party while they do. I suggest to you that if is how wealthy people are, and why they cling to that wealth, it has already caused a stumbling block between them and their proper relationship with their neighbour, which, Jesus informs us, is to be a relationship of love.
Nor do I see it as a necessary truth that the wealthy are wealthy because God has given them that wealth. Often enough they have simply exploited a position of power to take it. Even if it were true, though, from those to whom much is given, much is expected; and if you are unable to meet that expectation, because you are unable to part with your wealth, even in a good cause, then I think your God is a very different creature to the loving, but challenging, father of Jesus.
Here is the reference.
Ecclesiastes chapter 5 vs 18-20
Whether rich or poor we should all be charitable and learn to be content.
I honestly am embarrassed some young Christians have not read the entirety of scripture and then rush to make their own 'moral' judgements without first seeking Gods word and seeing what he has to say about it in its entirety.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?