View Full Version : Is a "rich Christian" an oxymoron?
Given that Jesus' use of his talent (today the Hebraic 'talent' can be translated to mean a year's salary) to feed others, and the constant emphasis on poverty, I have to ask:
Is a rich Cristian an oxymoron?
BienvenuJDC
05-21-2009, 11:25 PM
Why couldn't a Christian be rich?
I don't believe they can. And it is simply by too many meetings with rich people who would say they earned what they had and screw the poor. Too many to not ask this question.
For me this is the conflict with Christianity and English Enlightenment. It was such a vast overthrow that only Calvinism and Lutheranism could support this coup.
BienvenuJDC
05-22-2009, 12:16 AM
There are many wealthy philanthropists and many poor thieves. The only way that it could be justified that Christians could not be wealthy is if the religion forbade one to be wealthy. In the general sense, it does not. That is not to say that some sects that follow general Christian principles might not require one to go into poverty. But the general teachings of the New Testament do not require one to go into poverty. The Scriptures teach a voluntary benevolence. Consider the actions of the Christians in the first century according to the book of Acts (2:44), "Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need." This is an account of what they chose to do, not what they were commanded to do.
In another passage, the apostle Peter made this remark to Christians who had brought a gift for the poor (Acts 5:3-4), "But Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.'"
The sinful act here was lying to the Holy Spirit, it was NOT holding back part of their own property, since Peter told him that it was his before he sold it...and the money was his after he sold it. He is basically saying that they were not obligated to give it all, or even any of it.
Another passage ( 1 Corinthians 16:2) teaches one to give as he/she prospers. "On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come." While the Jews under the Law were commanded to tithe (give a tenth) of there prosperity, the Christians were given no such requirements. Christians were told (2 Corinthians 8:8), "I speak not by commandment, but I am testing the sincerity of your love by the diligence of others." and (8:12-14) "For if there is first a willing mind, it is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have. 13 For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened; 14 but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack, that their abundance also may supply your lack—that there may be equality."
Paul had written that "I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened;"but "your abundance may supply their lack." There was a need to be filled...and these people had been prosperous...and after the need is fulfilled they will continue to be prosperous.
There were wealthy benevolent Christians recorded in the Bible, and Jesus did not require that they all be poor. He only told the Rich Young Ruler to sell all his possessions because He knew that the man loved his possessions more than he loved Jesus Christ/God.
The Vatican has paid more to sex abuse victims than the annual GDP of some countries. Vatican city is the most elaborately decorated place in this planet. And the huge entrance fee they charge everyone at the entrance to see these riches more than pays for the up keeping, be assured.
now lets try this: Acts 2:44, Who would do this today in maerica? This sounds very communist in philosophy to me.
Acts 5, Are all people really giving 10 full per cent? And when one talks obligations are we really speaking God? Does God ask you to fulfill obligations, or to give as much as is humanly possible?
Corinthians:
If the old Testament is irrelevant, why keep it in the cannon? It seems that the ten Commandments are irrelevant, and here I will agree that old texts should be revised, but if one can work on a saturday, and not tithe, why even print the old testament?
8:8 is the money maker. Listen there.
Next, would Jesus say not having cable is a burden? Would jesus say that owning a 10 year old cart is a burden? Would Jesus say that shopping in second hand clothing stores is a burden? If jesus were alive today, do yu think he would have an internet subscription? Equality was vastly different then, the discrepancy between rich and poor was not what it is today
And this is the difference now. The hypocracy is not in living a wealthy life, it is in calling it a 'Christ-like" life. When one asks What Would Jesus Do, he needs only look to the Book to find out. If one can not live like Him, why term themselves after His name?
the only of the three monothiestic faiths to forbid wealth is the third revelation. Law was first, then social code, then money.
billyjack
05-22-2009, 01:35 AM
being a Christian should mean "do as christ did"-- share a similar moral code: a bull through the eye of needle is easier than a rich mans path to heaven, not worry about the morrow, yada yada yada, be fantastically poor. (a crappy morality in my opinion, sounds like something a poor person came up with to make his derelict lot in life seem superior to the rich man's lot that he resents)
its an oxymoron and vatican city is hypocrisy at its finest, even the vatican priest think so: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e1H3KRcqKo
Well, like I said, English Enlightenment. "Convince a man never so much that wealth has its advantages of nasty penury..." etc. Locke paraphrased. Wealth is a defining factor in EE philosophy. That is what I said I had a problem lining up.
and by the way, that derelict was Jesus.
but this need not be a balk in a true christians plan
JacobF
05-22-2009, 01:42 AM
Vatican city is the most elaborately decorated place in this planet.
If I'm not mistaken the Vatican is the wealthiest institution on the planet too. If not, one of them.
I've always found it to be strange how fixated Christianity and particularly Roman Catholicism has been with money, for instance the history with selling pardons for peoples indulgences, effectively buying a ticket to heaven. Strange because the teachings of Christ are pretty clear in that excess money can lead to sin.
I don't think a rich Christian is an automatic oxymoron. You can still be a decent, responsible, giving person while still having wealth. But at the same time you can be a greedy and uncaring person, go to confession a few times a year and call yourself saved, which I don't think is a "true" Christian.
The saints tended to not fixate themselves with money or possessions. For example, St. Xenia gave everything she owned to other unfortunate people in Moscow. Which is, again, why I find it perplexing that Christianity and particularly the Vatican is so entrenched in raising money and keeping wealth.
the Vatican is the worst thing to ever happen to religion. It is a political force. Massive numbers of people, massive numbers of dollars. An interest group as far as I am concerned. And the concordat of Worms... Jesus help the church.
and by the way, no sound on this crappy computer. sorry youtube
billyjack
05-22-2009, 02:04 AM
and by the way, that derelict was Jesus.
probably not. i doubt that jesus really ever existed, hence my not naming him and instead referring to "his" morality as that of a resentful bum. no offense meant, just my take on the glamorizing of poverty.
Mr Endon
05-22-2009, 03:54 AM
The Protestants' hatred for the poor says 'no'. As for the Catholics, well, the discussion of the Vatican City above should be enlightening enough. Theoretically, though, the good Catholic shouldn't be obscenely rich, I think.
subterranean
05-22-2009, 04:33 AM
Jesus was a socialist and I personally share his idea in terms of accumalation of wealth.
Niamh
05-22-2009, 05:54 AM
probably not. i doubt that jesus really ever existed, hence my not naming him and instead referring to "his" morality as that of a resentful bum. no offense meant, just my take on the glamorizing of poverty.
Jesus is mentioned in roman records so the "man" did exist. :)
BienvenuJDC
05-22-2009, 06:10 AM
JDC is my initials...
I am not Catholic, so I don't really care what wealth IS, or IS NOT in the Vatican. I personally do not think that the Vatican is a representation of the Christianity that I read about in the New Testament. Also...Corinthians is in the New Testament.
PoeticPassions
05-22-2009, 06:21 AM
Jesus was a socialist and I personally share his idea in terms of accumalation of wealth.
Jesus was all about equity. I think humanity would be better off if believed in those ideals as well. :)
Mr Endon
05-22-2009, 06:33 AM
JDC, I didn't say that the Vatican is the representation of Christianity, but, for good or bad, it is of Catholicism.
And fair enough, the text and the Church, the New Testament and the Vatican, are very different things. However, The Vatican is what happens when you try and put a wonderful (read utopian) theory into practice (on a large scale, mind you). If it didn't exist it would have to be invented.
Your right, my mistake J. Hot on a roll with the stream and slipped it, sorry.
backline
05-22-2009, 05:51 PM
now lets try this: Acts 2:44, Who would do this today in maerica? This sounds very communist in philosophy to me.
Acts 5, Are all people really giving 10 full per cent? And when one talks obligations are we really speaking God? Does God ask you to fulfill obligations, or to give as much as is humanly possible?
Corinthians:
If the old Testament is irrelevant, why keep it in the cannon? It seems that the ten Commandments are irrelevant, and here I will agree that old texts should be revised, but if one can work on a saturday, and not tithe, why even print the old testament?
8:8 is the money maker. Listen there.
Next, would Jesus say not having cable is a burden? Would jesus say that owning a 10 year old cart is a burden? Would Jesus say that shopping in second hand clothing stores is a burden? If jesus were alive today, do yu think he would have an internet subscription? Equality was vastly different then, the discrepancy between rich and poor was not what it is today
And this is the difference now. The hypocracy is not in living a wealthy life, it is in calling it a 'Christ-like" life. When one asks What Would Jesus Do, he needs only look to the Book to find out. If one can not live like Him, why term themselves after His name?
Sounds Socialist to me, as I understand Socialism vs Communism. fairly interchangable pursuant to this discussion perhaps.
As an Old Testament concept and practice, tithing 10% of gross income enjoys popularity among Christianity today based on scriptures (Old Testament) where god promises blessings and abundance to those who "...bring the full share (10%) of their sacrifice to the Lord (nowadays seen as Kingdom of God benevolences)..."
The Old Testament is seen by many Christians today as the bud: Christianity therefore equals the whole unfolding flower of God's intention for man.
The ten commendments are a basic outline of the 613 Levitical laws.
Jesus is believed to have fulfilled the law (as no member of mankind before had been able to do). But disciples understood much of the law to be edicts for living, so still relevant. Remember, early Christians were converted Jews, initially, so the cultural transfer would be expected (at least until abberations like modern evangelicals concentrated on the New Testament).
The main themes of the bible as a whole (redemption, forgiveness, et al) spiral through the Old and New Testaments congruently. Jesus didn't suddenly appear from nowhere, he came out of the Judean tradition and culture.
Christian writers today (like Tony Compolo) have said you can't own a BMW and call yourself a Christian. He said that to focus on the inequities of a starving world, and the Christians call to share.
There is much not to like about Christianity, but even Jesus taught through parables such as "the sower and the seeds," that the land owner (God) did not want the workers to pull up the weeds that the enemy had sown among the crop of good seed lest it hurt the true. The crop and weeds grow together then until the final harvest, then are separated. This mandates Christians to leave the evil doers in the church (which of course makes the church present less well as it would otherwise).
I see it a bit like Pinnochio: there are many trials and tests to becoming a "real boy," instead of just remaining a puppet. It takes some spiritual discernment to avoid succumbing to the temptations of The Land of Play.
Though I remained a practicing Christian for many years, in the end critical analysis lead me to alter my belief system to something more aligned with seeing much of the scripture speaking to a different consciousness than I see at large in the church.
BienvenuJDC
05-22-2009, 05:55 PM
Christianity may seem to be socialistic, but it is not a system that was intended to be forced in a government system.
tailor STATELY
06-03-2009, 12:58 AM
As a Christian of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I believe that from the wealth of those with a mind single to the glory of God comes relief to the poor & afflicted... and therefore do not believe that wealth and the belief in Christ are in dis-harmony.
Christianity may seem to be socialistic, but it is not a system that was intended to be forced in a government system.
I agree. Rather than socialism, which doesn't endear itself to faith of any sort, Christianity promotes the principle of consecration to those of spiritual sensibilities.
From Wikipedia The Law of Consecration: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_consecration)
"Consecration is understood to mean selfless dedication of time and means to help "build Zion" through spreading the gospel by means of missionary work, temple and family-history work, and helping members grow in the gospel by providing teaching, leadership, and service.[citation needed] Faithful members are asked to tithe to support those endeavors. In addition, members are asked to pay a liberal fast offering to help supply the needs of the poor. Other funds to which members are asked to contribute as they are able include a general humanitarian fund to feed the poor of the world, a Perpetual Education Fund to assist in the education of individuals (generally in third world countries), a general missionary fund to assist young men and women from economically depressed areas, and temple building funds. Most members are also asked to serve in the church's unpaid ministries as teachers, youth or adult leaders, temple or family-history workers, or in other administrative positions."
I was reminded last Sunday in a talk given by the President of our Stake that this principle is best illustrated in the scriptures written by the Prophet Jacob...
Jacob 2:11 "Wherefore, I must tell you the truth according to the plainness of the word of God. For behold, as I inquired of the Lord, thus came the word unto me, saying: Jacob, get thou up into the temple on the morrow, and declare the word which I shall give thee unto this people.
12 And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious ores, in the which this land, which is a land of promise unto you and to your seed, doth abound most plentifully.
13 And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.
14 And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in this thing? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in these things his judgments must speedily come unto you.
15 O that he would show you that he can pierce you, and with one glance of his eye he can smite you to the dust!
16 O that he would rid you from this iniquity and abomination. And, O that ye would listen unto the word of his commands, and let not this pride of your hearts destroy your souls!
17 Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.
18 But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.
19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted."
I re-iterate a poem I wrote a time ago:
The Myrmidon
Witness
the myrmidon
not as
grazing sheep
but a love
of silent
service
12-10-2006
Thank you for this thoughtful discussion.
:tailor STATELY
andave_ya
06-03-2009, 03:02 PM
and by the way, that derelict was Jesus.
I suppose, on the human side of things, He WAS poor, but...He's fully God and fully man. Why should he keep to the poverty-stricken side of things when he could either go back to Heaven or, make himself rich?
andave_ya
06-03-2009, 03:04 PM
I ask you, how is Christianity socialistic? Doesn't Jesus tell us to render to Caesar what is due unto Caesar, to submit to all lawful authority regardless of whether or not you agree so long as it doesn't go against the principles of the Bible, and even to pray for those in authority?
NikolaiI
06-03-2009, 11:05 PM
Socialistic perhaps because he said, "Give away all your possessions and follow me."
NikolaiI
06-04-2009, 10:21 PM
However, I wasn't trying to be socialist. While there are good things about being poor, money is a power. I don't think the best thing is for everyone to renounce it. It is a power and should be used for good. So it's not a bad thing to have money, it should be used for good. Or for the divine.
Judas130
06-07-2009, 09:38 AM
the Vatican is the worst thing to ever happen to religion. It is a political force. Massive numbers of people, massive numbers of dollars. An interest group as far as I am concerned. And the concordat of Worms... Jesus help the church.
The Vatican is essentially an aged and morally absolute conservative establishment. It is a museum to the wealth of theocentric artworks and divine-inspired architecture - all of which the puritan finds pointless. Yet the vatican is a testament of mankind's ability and is home to immense history in text, yet it is testament also to an irrelevant mode of thinking that has no rightful grasp in the modern age - it is but a ghost of its former power, the power it gobbled up from the fall of the Roman Empire, and used to censor and restrict rational learning upon its subject nations.
Though, the reformation was the worst thing to happen to Christianity, which even in today's liberal western countries, still provokes tensions. it is, of course, an interest group - but it is not the only one under Christ's banner.
Doesn't Jesus tell us to render to Caesar what is due unto Caesar, to submit to all lawful authority regardless of whether or not you agree so long as it doesn't go against the principles of the Bible, and even to pray for those in authority?
State control is something very common of socialism/communism, to respect and ideolise the authority is, and was, very common in China with Mao, and with Stalin (or even Hitler *gasp*). The policies of conservatism involve deregulation and even 'lessaiz faire' approaches to state intervention, which is the opposite to what you've said. :thumbs_up
However, I wasn't trying to be socialist. While there are good things about being poor, money is a power. I don't think the best thing is for everyone to renounce it. It is a power and should be used for good. So it's not a bad thing to have money, it should be used for good. Or for the divine.
It is a common misinterpretation to say 'money is the root of all evil'. the correct phrase is actually 'THE LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all evil'. There is nothing wrong with money, it is a system which we live by, and like you said it gives power. To love it, worship it, 'roll around in it' is, by Christian standard, morally wrong.
Buh4Bee
06-18-2009, 10:44 PM
Yes, as an answer to the thread question. Christ made the tax collector give up his money to follow him. Feed the poor and cloth the needy!
I suppose, on the human side of things, He WAS poor, but...He's fully God and fully man. Why should he keep to the poverty-stricken side of things when he could either go back to Heaven or, make himself rich?
I asked this question regarding his death. That is where I found this divide. If Jesus was God, the suffering was meaningless. If he was man it was truly suffering.
I respect the guy more if he is just a guy, personally.
"The Vatican is essentially an aged and morally absolute conservative establishment. It is a museum to the wealth of theocentric artworks and divine-inspired architecture - all of which the puritan finds pointless. Yet the vatican is a testament of mankind's ability and is home to immense history in text, yet it is testament also to an irrelevant mode of thinking that has no rightful grasp in the modern age - it is but a ghost of its former power, the power it gobbled up from the fall of the Roman Empire, and used to censor and restrict rational learning upon its subject nations.
Though, the reformation was the worst thing to happen to Christianity, which even in today's liberal western countries, still provokes tensions. it is, of course, an interest group - but it is not the only one under Christ's banner."
Ehhh...
If not them, then whom? Gimme a place this didn't happen.
"It is a common misinterpretation to say 'money is the root of all evil'. the correct phrase is actually 'THE LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all evil'. There is nothing wrong with money, it is a system which we live by, and like you said it gives power. To love it, worship it, 'roll around in it' is, by Christian standard, morally wrong."
Let's say you make 'X'. Your city has about four income brackets, 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D'. 'A' being richest, etc. You grew up as a 'C'. That is the life that God gave you when you were born. You are accustomed to the food of 'C' and the life of 'C.' If you make 'X' and 'X' will make you a full on 'B' or a fringe element, the poorer of it, of an 'A.' If the talents one used could advance him comfortably one class them he would have given a fair return on his talent, thus the parable of the talents. Now, if as a 'B,' one can live well in relation to their parents class, and still have some to provide for others, would not this be more "Christian" than not? But, if one struggles to be an 'A,' is not this vanity? --then is it not, as well, a selfish absorption of the advantages your mother gave you in her class birth for you to stand on, and an absorption of the advantage that god gave you in regards your talent, all to not return the favor in anyway to anyother? If you are struggling to be one class above, you will not be able to tithe or help others. Also given Maslow's pyramid, how could you thrive, humanly, if rent was questionable?
For me, "rolling around in it" would be 30k a year. With that I could take care of me and mine. With that I could buy a bunch of dollar burgers and sit with bums and shoot the $#%@. I could send a hundred buck to a nice little art program I found. That would be it for me.
I have a pastor who lives in my city and drives one of several of his luxury cars around Houston. He can fly private or public. He owns the Summit. I think he could buy a few more dollar burgers himself. It is all in proportion. It is relative. If you can eat fillet instead of Kobe beef, drive a lexus instead of a jag. And then put the excess into others, that is fair, but if your heart never bleeds when you see people who live worse than you were born, you may be beyond the help of religion.
I think.
Yes, as an answer to the thread question. Christ made the tax collector give up his money to follow him. Feed the poor and cloth the needy!
I think the story about feeding the forty and the four hundred, etc... the four is a funny number, meant with Jesus' income he could help that many others.
Judas130
06-19-2009, 02:26 PM
Ehhh...
If not them, then whom? Gimme a place this didn't happen.
I made a number of points there, I'm not sure I get your question, could you go a little deeper? :thumbs_up
Let's say you make 'X'. Your city has about four income brackets, 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D'. 'A' being richest, etc. You grew up as a 'C'. That is the life that God gave you when you were born. You are accustomed to the food of 'C' and the life of 'C.' If you make 'X' and 'X' will make you a full on 'B' or a fringe element, the poorer of it........
Hmm, wise words for a capitalist christian? maybe so, if I were christian. I'm only trying to emphasise with the christian point of view, being one many moons back - and we agree here, yeah? the only differing view is the rhetoric used, 'rolling around in it', which to you is of a lesser, metaphorical, and arguably selfless, ideal in comparison to mine - which is literal. Now, being an atheist conservative living in Britain, where the class system is really felt and I am also of the middle class, I aspire to use talent to reach my goals, I will probably never reach 'A', but I may come close - yet moral and money is no concern so la de da. My point here was that there is a common misinterpretation with the quote 'the love of money is the root of all evil'. Money is a system, if you utilise it, ('stuggle to be 'A'') then all you are doing is milking the system, getting other people from 'c' and 'd' to work your ideas for you, and you take all the credit. Capitalism in that strand is thus immoral to the christian-socialist, for in the eyes of the Lord all equate the same. 'Milking the system' for your wealthy American pastor is of course, immoral in theory, ignored in practise - and you have eluded to the hypocrisy of the morality taught by him and the many like him across the country.
It must be mighty annoying to realise that Christianity is a business for many, and a consumer good for many more. So, does this revelation call for a re-evaluation of the christian system?
"I made a number of points there, I'm not sure I get your question, could you go a little deeper?"
Happily, my friend.
It was a fairly encompassing point I made. There has always been a way to take advantage of people. Faith is easy when you are trying to squeeze blood from a turnip, but despite the living conditions of europe over history, the Vatican was one great institution to rise from the enslavement of others. The ottoman sultans were good at this. The chinese empires were good at this. The manikongo was good at this.
I mean to say that it almost seems as if there is a common need in humanity to be brutalized by an instituion that is wealthy and powerful. Here it is money, Here being Houston Texas (I know), by having a higher earthly power, humanity sees a goal to strive towards, when one can comingle that goal with a gift in the afterlife, that institution must needs be rich and exploitive; all the world over.
AAAAAAAANNNNNNddddddd, exhale.
I heard that a german sentence can being on one side of the atlantic, and end on the other, without ever burdening itself with a period.
your next point is fun, but I have to do some laundry right now. Ill get to it later.
PEACE! ! !
Shalom! ! !
Salaam! ! !
"Hmm, wise words for a capitalist christian? maybe so, if I were christian. I'm only trying to emphasise with the christian point of view, being one many moons back - and we agree here, yeah? the only differing view is the rhetoric used, 'rolling around in it', which to you is of a lesser, metaphorical, and arguably selfless, ideal in comparison to mine - which is literal."
I'm trying to understand the Christian point of view as well, and it is not very hard at all to prove it is dualistic; one may attach a pejorative or not as they chose. And I'd say, yes, we do have in common a history of faith. I am still trying to renew it though.
And I have this odd image of Scrooge McDuck, no offense at all.
"Now, being an atheist conservative living in Britain, where the class system is really felt and I am also of the middle class, I aspire to use talent to reach my goals, I will probably never reach 'A', but I may come close - yet moral and money is no concern so la de da. My point here was that there is a common misinterpretation with the quote 'the love of money is the root of all evil'. Money is a system, if you utilise it, ('stuggle to be 'A'') then all you are doing is milking the system, getting other people from 'c' and 'd' to work your ideas for you, and you take all the credit. Capitalism in that strand is thus immoral to the christian-socialist, for in the eyes of the Lord all equate the same. 'Milking the system' for your wealthy American pastor is of course, immoral in theory, ignored in practise - and you have eluded to the hypocrisy of the morality taught by him and the many like him across the country.
It must be mighty annoying to realise that Christianity is a business for many, and a consumer good for many more. So, does this revelation call for a re-evaluation of the christian system?"
No it doesn't call for a re-evaluation. It is neither a new revelation. I think rather it is an old gripe. It is not a new occurrence nor an unique one. What does not make sense to me is that in the Bible it says that Church is when two people profess together, that praying should not be done in public for the appearance of vanity... Further, I do not believe that God does very much work in the world. I am not of the opinion that he places balks or ease into anyone's life. But damn it right is right.
And the only way to assert right is to understand wrong can happen. Bury your head in the sand, or write your own name in it? More than anything really, the feeling of being let down, by the quality of the churches, is the worst. It has never been too humane until now, when the hope of inspiring people to do good due to a reverence of virtue is gone, now it is so humane it is as sacred as an SPCA.
But you know what is really annoying...
It is you dern Brits that messed us up over here. I don't know how the french ever came up with the Declaration of Rights, but it was nice.
Just flabbergasting, the French!?!? The French can't get through a football game without a revolution... But,
The ideas I like. And over here we had a chance to be weak for a long enough time that we could have tried any government we chose, really.The English ideas of an aristocracy still resonate through our conservative who come from the anti feds. That class system is felt roughly here, but...
I have a friend who said that here we can hate race better than anything. In America your labels are transient, you can change prot to catholic and back again all you like, but your skin color is your skin color.
I disagree. I think that here the whole idea is money, and you can read it in Bentham, Locke, Mill, all of them. No respect for the artisan, titles handed down by birth.
The class system ya'll so paternally handed down to us.
That is the annoying part.
And in all good humour.
Tsuyoiko
06-22-2009, 08:00 AM
If Jesus was here today, would he wear a Rolex and drive a Mercedes?
Judas130
06-23-2009, 11:35 AM
you can read it in Bentham, Locke, Mill, all of them. No respect for the artisan, titles handed down by birth.
The class system ya'll so paternally handed down to us.
That is the annoying part.
Hmm, all British philosophers aswell. Try not to perceive the British as one whole snobbish conservative race. Sure, I'm conservative, but in today's center-political Britain, its more a 'social tory' role, trying to tell the desensitized capitalist that those figures have faces and feelings, regardless if the system works with each reform and change. The idea here, even though politics is not supposed to be on this forum - and frankly, I find it odd and slightly insulting, that you dig at my birthplace (even though my entire ancestry is Irish) with no real incentive beyond that I am British. Your codified constitution, sir, is your downfall and the reason why there is but nominal progress socially in your country. Trust me, in America you experience social freedoms now that still in Britain are unheard. The class system you so hate you have not experienced, big business capitalists are just capitalists, not aristocrat lovers - the businessmen of America's past would turn in their graves at the notion no doubt - seeing as they are the ones who have defended the traditionalist policies of the founding fathers for so many years. :thumbs_up Now that was highly straying from the subject matter.
This is your relevant point:
What does not make sense to me is that in the Bible it says that Church is when two people profess together, that praying should not be done in public for the appearance of vanity... Further, I do not believe that God does very much work in the world. I am not of the opinion that he places balks or ease into anyone's life.
You prescribe to Christians to practise as the bible tells them to - yet bear in mind the contradictions to this, how, for example, many missionaries seek to act as the disciples acted to convert whole races. Opinion wise, I'd like to see Christians keep themselves to themselves - but with so many years and so high an influence, it is unlikely to be removed through words or bible-reasoning. The idea was a lovely traditional idea that no doubt helped persecuted Christians cope, it has no relevance today where pluralism has allowed room for following to spread. :thumbs_up
Whifflingpin
06-23-2009, 12:19 PM
"It is you dern Brits that messed us up over here. I don't know how the french ever came up with the Declaration of Rights, but it was nice. "
It was a legacy from the Levellers, who were, (Shock! Horror!) English.
Answer to the original question: assuming that "rich" means materially rich (or, to pinch a line from RLS, immaterially rich) then in today's world "rich" and "Christian" are mutually exclusive, whether applied to individuals or organizations.
In a world without poor, the terms would not necessarily be contradictory.
hellsapoppin
08-11-2009, 01:17 AM
woe unto you that are rich for ye have received your only consolation ... for ye shall mourn and weep
Luke 6:24,25
go now and howl ye rich men for the torments that shall come upon you
James 5:1
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
Matt. 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25
Sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven
Matt. 19:21; Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22
The New Testament promises great tribulation to the wealthy. Of course, that never stopped them for doing the evils stated in that book. But it would appear that in answer to the query, being a Christian and wealthy is not reconcilable.
Is a "rich Christian" an oxymoron?
Both the words ‘rich’ and ‘Christian’ are subjective, and one might wonder if the question is intended to incite rather than enlighten.
One can interpret ‘rich’ to refer to one who lives comfortably and without need with fair understanding that one is on the same footing as the opening poster.
The word ‘Christian’ might be more difficult; however, to suppose. One’s original interpretation might be to think that the word means a person who follows the way and teaching of Jesus. If this is the intent then only itinerant clerics who have taken vows of poverty and move about doing selfless work, such as Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, would qualify as a Christian. To have so much as a permanent home would be contrary to where the original poster seems to want to take the question.
It is probably not likely that a person who might consider him/herself ‘Christian’ would fall into the former definition but may rather be one who believes in the way and teachings of Jesus and hopefully does his/her best to reflect that in their daily life (though that is where the real exploration should be in this poster’s opinion).
Therefore my answer is: No, it is not an oxymoron.
~L
hellsapoppin
08-12-2009, 09:35 PM
You bring up a point that illustrates the old idea that it is the exception that always makes the rule. Many of us continue to grieve over the loss of Mrs Eunice Kennedy Shriver yesterday. She certainly illustrates the point that one can be wealthy while remaining a good Christian.
You bring up a point that illustrates the old idea that it is the exception that always makes the rule. Many of us continue to grieve over the loss of Mrs Eunice Kennedy Shriver yesterday. She certainly illustrates the point that one can be wealthy while remaining a good Christian.
I very much agree, Hellsapoppin, she was indeed a very good illustration of a wealthy christian.
~L
hellsapoppin
08-26-2009, 10:56 AM
Yesterday, we lost another good wealthy Christian in Senator Ted Kennedy.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.