Neil wrote:
If I unloaded the question to your satisfaction, would you then be able to list any examples? Or are you just trying to hoist me on my own petard, in place of a substantial reply?
If someone said all Christians are hypocrites because they met one or two who were, you all would object strongly. Yet this is exactly what those who stereotype wealthy people are doing, & not even with one example as yet here.

Frank wrote:
Good night brother! The reason I run these things by you are three-fold. If you disagree with me then there is the possibility that I have explained something incorrectly or am wrong. If you agree with me, then I know I am correct.

I said: "If you agree with me, then I know I am correct." Which was just highlighting your silly talk on this site. You said it.

Then you came in with another jokey bit of nonsense to which I replied.

You didn't like my reply?

Jesus in a joking mood is He?

Did you post this Neil? Cos thats a really loaded question you fired at Rhymnrzn.

Evil wealthy merchants are obviously not going to be Christian are they?

Frank wrote:
Mike, now I know I am obsessed with this, but if I say something that I clearly didn't mean to say, then I "must" correct it. What I meant to say was that I "am" going from a non-voter to a Romney voter. You were instrumental in that change.
Disagreed - Okay, I agree with you. I just hope you realize that "every" post that discussed agreeing or disagreeing was purely in jest. If you didn't understand that then I am really confused, but so be it. But your tone is certainly not something that comes across well when confronted with humor or jesting.

He told the wealthy man "go give away all you own" and the man went away troubled.

And blessed be God Most High,
Who has delivered your enemies into your hand."
He gave him a tenth of all.

Neil wrote:
You offer no Biblical evidence backing up this inference. Abraham was hospitable, true, but that's not necessarily the same thing, esp. since his visitors were destroying angels who were (we may presume) not poverty-stricken.

The point is that giving from ones abundance, freely and voluntarily, shows a man to be unconstrained by the fear of losing his wealth and becoming poor. Man has a fleshly nature, this is the nature sin appeals to, there are dangers inherent in being wealthy - a man may become tempted by his wealth, become enslaved to his wealth, become fearful of losing his wealth to the Gospel message. The latter is less of a temptation now because the Evangelical / Charismatic church leaders have given the aquisition of wealth the full approval of God.

Neil wrote:
I know that. But you twist the intent of His teaching into a commentary on the evils of wealth. It is not. We have no logical ground here to infer that it's any easier for a poor man. Neither the poor nor the rich can enter the Kingdom, save a miraculous work of God. Earthly blessings, such as wealth, imply nothing about Divine favor toward unworthy men, contrary to what, throughout history, is often believed.

Neil wrote:
Abraham & Job were wealthy; therefore, it was hard for them to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. They were disadvantaged.
But you are not understanding the point Jesus was making. Note that in the following verse, the disciples do not fallaciously infer that a poor person has it easier. Instead, they ask, “Who then can be saved?” The answer was, “With God, all things are possible.” So wealth really wasn't the point of that passage.
Regarding frugality, it is surely not virtuous to be a big spender, like the Prodigal Son. If rich people are so disadvantaged, as you say, then why should a Christian fret over them like you do? Why not mind our own business, as Paul commands, instead of worrying about what other people have & passing ignorant judgment on them?
Hey rhymnrzn, put your cards on the table: can you supply any examples of evil wealthy merchants who are ostensible Christians? And I don't mean convicts like Abramoff or Martha the Inside Trader

Wealthy people aren't more virtuous for being frugal - that's just the way men think.

Is that all men? Should ALL men be teachers? Are men able to decieve others? Are men able to be decieved?
Does the church have ONE head, or many heads? Should women remain silent in a church where the men are taking others in heresy? There are so many questions formula's can't answer aren't there?

Who are 'teachers'? How many disciples does a teacher need to have before they can be called teachers of men?