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.
It appears to be you who are stereotyping wealthy and poor people. If you read back a few pages you can even see where you started to make this thread about yourself.
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.
Look - this is not a private chat room Neil.
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?
Do you understand this site is not a private chat room?
@Neil - "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"
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?
I'm sure there are plenty of wealthy men and women who think they are Chrisitan's.
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.
Well, maybe the 'private' not very funny jokes are inappropriate if they are going to be used to lay a trap sir. There is no sin is being fooled sir. The foolers are the ones who sin.
Yes. And Jesus said "it is difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven".
He told the wealthy man "go give away all you own" and the man went away troubled.
I guess all Jesus was saying was that if you have wealth, then it might be an obstacle to you following Him completely. He wasn't passing judgement on the poor or the rich. He was saying the poor have an advantage over the rich in being able to follow Him.
Genesis 14 - 15. When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he led out his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. 1He brought back all the goods, and also brought back his relative Lot with his possessions, and also the women, and the people. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High. 19 He blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth;
And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand." He gave him a tenth of all.
21 The king of Sodom said to Abram, "Give the people to me and take the goods for yourself." 22 Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have sworn to the LORD God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth, 23 that I will not take a thread or a sandal thong or anything that is yours, for fear you would say, `I have made Abram rich.' 24 "I will take nothing except what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their share." After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying, "Do R369 not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you.
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.
Abraham gave 10% of the spoils of war to Melchizadek. Voluntarily, without being taxed and Melchizidec didn't ask for a donation. He gave freely of his wealth.
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.
Jesus was not saying the poor are more worthy than the rich.
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.
I see what you are getting at. Wealth is not evil, abundance is not evil. It is mens hearts and minds that are evil toward the prospect of wealth. Wealthy people are at a disadvantage, in the area of wealth or poverty, because they have more to lose than the poor.
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, âWho then can be saved?â The answer was, âWith God, all things are possible.â 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
It was actually Jesus who said, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 "Again I say to you, 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.", not me.
Hmmm. Jesus said it was difficult for a wealthy person to enter the Kingdom of heaven. The rich, are disadvantaged where the Kingdom of Heaven is concerned. Jesus didn't differentiate between those who were frugal with their riches and those who weren't.
Wealthy people aren't more virtuous for being frugal - that's just the way men think.
Frank: "I'm not all that sure where you are going with your thoughts, but I will say this; women are definitely prone to deception and therefore we should not allow them to be Christian teachers or leaders in any aspect. They should seek to be role models solely as wives and mothers and leave the teaching and leading to men.
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?