A Christians Duty and Financial Gains

[Hermit Philosopher]

The kingdom pursuit and what's right is a very relevant point, so thank you for the reference. It clearly states that we should seek and pursue the kingdom, that we shouldn't worry or be concerned about things like food, clothing, or having something to drink. What do you imagine pursuing the kingdom entails? What might the kingdom be like? What might the quality of experience feel like? How about being correct or right about the potential and the pursuit of these things? If we are to pursue the kingdom and not worry, and if it's God's good pleasure to give this to us, then why the resistance to the increase of wealth. Money has a way of affording us with better life experiences after all. Besides, it's expected for and from us.

This suggests a very material, highly unspiritual understanding of the “Kingdom”.

I fear that Heaven may be a disappointment to you.


Humbly,
Hermit

 

[MikeF]

Comformity to basic principles is a logical stance, imo. Physics for example: It just makes sense to comform and live in a manner not in opposition to the laws of physics. When money is involved, financial gain and increasing our quality of life through these channels, I would think, given the long standing nature of the principles behind obtaining money that comformity to this vehicle is not only expected, but can also be beneficial, both personally and in terms of ability to help increase our increase by leveraging a portion of that increase by investing in other, more capable entities, who have greater buying power than my individual self. I choose not to harm others. The former sentence is long winded I know, but you likely understand my point just the same. When it comes to organized religion and traditions and practice, well ... I prefer a more logical approach. I try to utilize my personal qualities and honest spirit in an effort to honor the necessities associated with my faith, which can be summed up as an effort to honor truth, particularly my personal truth as a unique individual. Call it my personal relationship with the way, the truth, and life because that's exactly what it is.

You began the thread with the question:

Why do some people view financial gain to be sinful or immoral behavior by Christians?

Further along you stated:

I see it differently.

I am suggesting that you have answered your OP. We can rephrase the last quote as:

“One sees it differently.”

You have chosen “A more logical approach” as your fundamental guiding principle, whereas another may choose the literal words of Jesus as their fundamental guiding principle. Which approach is more or less Christian? Is there a measure separate from an individual's needs and wants? I suppose there is always the standard, “What would Jesus say?”

I’m not weighing in on either approach, or other possible approaches, simply highlighting that there will always be as varied a choice as there are people choosing.

 

[Balthazzar]

If you prefer a different translation, I really don't care. You go ahead and look at whatever Bible version you want.

But what I am going to assume is:

- you're a Christian who is familiar with the Bible, especially frequently-quoted passages, and

- you can use Google.



Why do you spell "beatitudes" that way?




I don't know what you're asking. If you're curious about how the NET Bible translates any particular verse, you can easily pull it up on Biblegateway.com.

And like I said: I don't really care which translation you use.



We'll see.




What are you referring to here? Do you have a particular passage in mind?




And every dollar you withhold from your church because you "enjoy the finer things in life" is a dollar that doesn't go to those causes.




The Bible does condemn being irresponsible, but it also has many passages that condemn wealth itself.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) is one example.




It does? Where, exactly?




Growing one's wealth arguably does that. Consuming one's wealth to live in comfort does not.

Growing one's wealth is exactly what I'm referring to, which can be accomplished by the way we utilize our funds. On one hand, we spend money on materials, on another we pay taxes and some people choose to tithe. The tithes aren't necessarily required to go to any specific church or entity. I prefer a leveraging entity able to increase my contributions buying power. For example: I buy a soda pop for $1.50 at the market. That $1.50 will only be enough to buy a single soda pop, but ... for those who have greater buying power, my $1.50 is now able to buy 4 of the same item. That's leveraging a dollar and I simply cannot do this without others who have that ability. Comfort is not a thing to be vilified, but a false sense of power may be. We sometimes become far too arrogant and controlling to continue pace. That's what I've been observing in life anyway. That type of power comes with a hefty price tag sometimes.

 

[Balthazzar]

You began the thread with the question:



Further along you stated:



I am suggesting that you have answered your OP. We can rephrase the last quote as:

“One sees it differently.”

You have chosen “A more logical approach” as your fundamental guiding principle, whereas another may choose the literal words of Jesus as their fundamental guiding principle. Which approach is more or less Christian? Is there a measure separate from an individual's needs and wants? I suppose there is always the standard, “What would Jesus say?”

I’m not weighing in on either approach, or other possible approaches, simply highlighting that there will always be as varied a choice as there are people choosing.

I was referring to viewing it differently than the poster in question. It was a simple statement. I made it to avoid the argument being presented. It seemed pointless to argue the point based on my position. I view it differently than others. Obviously. It can get interesting with our vast differences of opinions. In any case, money isn't going anywhere. There will always be some type of currency we place value on, whether it's food, or work, or favors - These are no different than our current money exchange system.

 

[Balthazzar]

This suggests a very material, highly unspiritual understanding of the “Kingdom”.

I fear that Heaven may be a disappointment to you.


Humbly,
Hermit

Why is that?

 

[MikeF]

In any case, money isn't going anywhere. There will always be some type of currency we place value on, whether it's food, or work, or favors - These are no different than our current money exchange system.

I agree.

It now comes down to how much is too much, and who gets to decide. Who decides what amount precludes one from being considered a Christian? What is the universal standard upon which all are to evaluate the question, and in turn be evaluated?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Why is that?

There are no material comforts in Heaven.
But Heaven [in Christianity] is not a material state so luckily, that makes no difference [to Christians].

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Growing one's wealth is exactly what I'm referring to, which can be accomplished by the way we utilize our funds.

I meant what Biblical passage are you referring to?

On one hand, we spend money on materials, on another we pay taxes and some people choose to tithe. The tithes aren't necessarily required to go to any specific church or entity. I prefer a leveraging entity able to increase my contributions buying power. For example: I buy a soda pop for $1.50 at the market. That $1.50 will only be enough to buy a single soda pop, but ... for those who have greater buying power, my $1.50 is now able to buy 4 of the same item. That's leveraging a dollar and I simply cannot do this without others who have that ability.

Yep. No issue with that.

Comfort is not a thing to be vilified, but a false sense of power may be.

According to the Bible, Jesus vilifies comfort. Do you disagree with Jesus or do you think the Bible misquotes him?

 

[Balthazzar]

I agree.

It now comes down to how much is too much, and who gets to decide. Who decides what amount precludes one from being considered a Christian? What is the universal standard upon which all are to evaluate the question, and in turn be evaluated?

Is this even remotely necessary? I mean to set a standard amount one is able to have and still be considered a Christian seems a bit much. Umm, in my opinion. Who in America or anywhere else for that matter truly finds this to be a valid option at all? I will assume sarcasm. Thank you.

 

[Balthazzar]

There are no material comforts in Heaven.
But Heaven [in Christianity] is not a material state so luckily, that makes no difference [to Christians].

Humbly,
Hermit

If this is true, then there would be no need for them. There are material comforts here, however which I find a little more pressing than the thought of an after life tomorrow.

 

[Balthazzar]

I meant what Biblical passage are you referring to?





Yep. No issue with that.



According to the Bible, Jesus vilifies comfort. Do you disagree with Jesus or do you think the Bible misquotes him?

I was under the impression that he would send the spirit of truth which is also called the comforter. I will assume it's true, although it appears to take time for some types to catch up to the benefit. This has a way of hindering our progress and our comforts in life. Too much deception present to truly be at peace with it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was under the impression that he would send the spirit of truth which is also called the comforter.

Are you talking about the paraclete in John 14? The term that's "comforter" in your translation is rendered "advisor" or "helper" in others.

I'm not sure how this is supposed to be relevant, though. How do you get from "God will grant me peace by sending you the Holy Spirit" to "God wants me to live austentatiously with lots of physical comforts?"

I will assume it's true, although it appears to take time for some types to catch up to the benefit. This has a way of hindering our progress and our comforts in life. Too much deception present to truly be at peace with it.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. You seem to be avoiding dealing directly with the points I raise, though.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I see a good deal of disagreement when it comes to Christians and money, namely Christians seeking monetary gains as Christians. It's a sad thing, imo, when people ridicule others for making money, working to make money, intentionally as Christian's laboring to make money, suggesting that it's somehow un-Christian for a Christian to seek financial increase. It's expected that we increase our wealth. It's suggested that we are responsible by making financial increases. If we're not making financial gains as Christians, what kind of Christians does that imply we are?

Slothful?
Foolish?

It's a Christian duty to make increase so we are better able to fulfill our obligations. Money has never been evil. Greed, on the other hand is an entirely different matter. The difference between greed and efforts to increase our wealth? The parable of the talents comes to mind. If I'm given 100 dollars and make no increase with that 100 dollars, how am I honoring anyone, including myself, particularly if I don't utilize it and simply save it? If I increase the $100 by 10 dollars, then I'm likewise expected to tithe or rather reinvest $1.00 of that increase to be leveraged again by larger bodies.

Why do some people view financial gain to be sinful or immoral behavior by Christians?

It’s not the gain so much as the exploitation that usually accompanies it.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I'm saying that the Bible condemns personal wealth, and that a wealthy Christian living in comfort is a hypocrite.

It’s also easy for Jesus to preach against wealth to the poor while staying in the houses of the rich. He got free room and board until he died.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Or perhaps how small the camel is?

Honey, I shrunk the livestock.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It’s also easy for Jesus to preach against wealth to the poor while staying in the houses of the rich. He got free room and board until he died.

Well, I never claimed that Jesus wasn't a hypocrite himself.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I see a good deal of disagreement when it comes to Christians and money, namely Christians seeking monetary gains as Christians. It's a sad thing, imo, when people ridicule others for making money, working to make money, intentionally as Christian's laboring to make money, suggesting that it's somehow un-Christian for a Christian to seek financial increase. It's expected that we increase our wealth. It's suggested that we are responsible by making financial increases. If we're not making financial gains as Christians, what kind of Christians does that imply we are?

Slothful?
Foolish?

It's a Christian duty to make increase so we are better able to fulfill our obligations. Money has never been evil. Greed, on the other hand is an entirely different matter. The difference between greed and efforts to increase our wealth? The parable of the talents comes to mind. If I'm given 100 dollars and make no increase with that 100 dollars, how am I honoring anyone, including myself, particularly if I don't utilize it and simply save it? If I increase the $100 by 10 dollars, then I'm likewise expected to tithe or rather reinvest $1.00 of that increase to be leveraged again by larger bodies.

Why do some people view financial gain to be sinful or immoral behavior by Christians?

Totally contradictory givin the coin in the fishes mouth parable.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Honey, I shrunk the livestock.

Or it's a really really really big needle.

 

[Balthazzar]

It’s also easy for Jesus to preach against wealth to the poor while staying in the houses of the rich. He got free room and board until he died.

Ok, so the contention is over Jesus peaching against wealth and prosperity while living in the houses of the rich with free room and board until he died. That seems a little contradictory ... that he preached against wealth and not that which is often attached to it, namely greed and poor treatment of others for the gain. That's what I've been suggesting as well as financial gains being an expectation from us as people. It seems a basic principle applied for betterment, yet we see a great deal of resistance in its practice. Between taxes and tithes minimal gains would not offer nearly as much benefit as moderate gains. I think the view is being skewed, particularly in reference to the parable of the talants, where the two who had more and increased were rewarded while the one with little who made no gains wasn't, and for that reason lost what they had been given. I guess it follows the parable of the guy who hoarded everything into his barn and was called a fool, given he was apparently on his death bed and was never able to utilize any of it for his benefit. The point is Jesus never taught against wealth, but he did teach us to increase our wealth and to keep the money or goods in play. If it is about wealth, then it's more so about greed and poor treatment of people than being wealthy, and I think you touched base on that by suggesting Jesus having free room and board in the houses of the rich until he died.

 

[danieldemol]

I think that the dogmatic Jesus probably did hate the wealthy, but I wouldn't expect a Christian to seek a life of extreme poverty because of this.

In my view being permanently homeless etc is foolish, I personally would have exhorted Christians to look after themselves, just not to go overboard with it.

In my opinion.