Mark 10:25 Easier for a camel...

[Foxfyre]

Indeed. Jesus perceived that the rich young man in the parable was fixated on his wealth and that it was hindering his spiritual well being. It had become a burden to him that, as Intense suggested, needed to be shed in order for him to be spiritually well. And Jesus rightfully noted that many people worship money and possessions to the exclusion of God in their lives and this is a problem for them.

However, Jesus did not at any time suggest that all the rich were evil or bad or that it was wrong to become rich. In the parable of the talents he supported the rich man who disciplined a servant who did not produce satisfactorily.

Yes, the rich do usually use the working class to become rich. But the working class also uses the rich to accumulate what they have. Remove the rich and all become poor with no means of becoming rich.

To whom much is given, much is expected.
Luke 12:48

Yep. But the scripture is somewhat ambivalent about WHAT is expected. So I look at the rich man who funded the new hospital wing, funded the new musuem planetarium, saw that the inner city school got new computers, started scholarship funds and foundations that enhance the lives of others, etc. etc. etc. as well as he puts money in the bank for others to borrow, invests his income to strengthen business and commerce, and employs sometimes thousands and thousands of people who wouldn't have jobs if he wasn't rich and I admire that man.

I always took that passage to mean that the man who shuts himself off, hoards his wealth, and contributes little or nothing to society is probably in deep spiritual trouble. But the man who makes the world a better place for others with his riches I can't find any reason to fault.

I know if the Left ever finds a way to redistribute all that wealth at the top, then we will all be poor.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It was just a great saying to the masses from church leaders to get whatever money they had.
Basically, if you have money you should give it to the church.
Church leaders back then damn near lived as good as the royal family.

 

[Againsheila]

"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." What does this mean to you?


Michael Medved mentioned on his show something along the lines of this being interpreted as the Wealthy have greater Moral responsibility in the ability to use their wealth for good or for evil. I have to agree. I do not take this as wealth is inherently evil.

Edited by Intense.

That inspite of what our politicians and ceo's believe Karma is coming back to bite them in the A$$?

 

[Againsheila]

Indeed. Jesus perceived that the rich young man in the parable was fixated on his wealth and that it was hindering his spiritual well being. It had become a burden to him that, as Intense suggested, needed to be shed in order for him to be spiritually well. And Jesus rightfully noted that many people worship money and possessions to the exclusion of God in their lives and this is a problem for them.

However, Jesus did not at any time suggest that all the rich were evil or bad or that it was wrong to become rich. In the parable of the talents he supported the rich man who disciplined a servant who did not produce satisfactorily.

Yes, the rich do usually use the working class to become rich. But the working class also uses the rich to accumulate what they have. Remove the rich and all become poor with no means of becoming rich.

To whom much is given, much is expected.
Luke 12:48

Yep. But the scripture is somewhat ambivalent about WHAT is expected. So I look at the rich man who funded the new hospital wing, funded the new musuem planetarium, saw that the inner city school got new computers, started scholarship funds and foundations that enhance the lives of others, etc. etc. etc. as well as he puts money in the bank for others to borrow, invests his income to strengthen business and commerce, and employs sometimes thousands and thousands of people who wouldn't have jobs if he wasn't rich and I admire that man.

I always took that passage to mean that the man who shuts himself off, hoards his wealth, and contributes little or nothing to society is probably in deep spiritual trouble. But the man who makes the world a better place for others with his riches I can't find any reason to fault.

I know if the Left ever finds a way to redistribute all that wealth at the top, then we will all be poor.

Not so, it'll only take them a few years to figure out how to become wealthy again. What you think they earned that wealth and can't do it again?

 

[Foxfyre]

To whom much is given, much is expected.
Luke 12:48

Yep. But the scripture is somewhat ambivalent about WHAT is expected. So I look at the rich man who funded the new hospital wing, funded the new musuem planetarium, saw that the inner city school got new computers, started scholarship funds and foundations that enhance the lives of others, etc. etc. etc. as well as he puts money in the bank for others to borrow, invests his income to strengthen business and commerce, and employs sometimes thousands and thousands of people who wouldn't have jobs if he wasn't rich and I admire that man.

I always took that passage to mean that the man who shuts himself off, hoards his wealth, and contributes little or nothing to society is probably in deep spiritual trouble. But the man who makes the world a better place for others with his riches I can't find any reason to fault.

I know if the Left ever finds a way to redistribute all that wealth at the top, then we will all be poor.

Not so, it'll only take them a few years to figure out how to become wealthy again. What you think they earned that wealth and can't do it again?

I didn't say permanently poor. But you tear down all the rich and there aren't any jobs, there is no venture capital, the banks are emptied, the foundations closed, the stock market shut up tight. Yes eventually society would regroup and those with the interest, drive, initiative, and smarts to make them successful in entreprenourship will again rise to the top and everything would stabilize......IF......our Constitution and personal liberties are restored. If not, we will be under the thumb of some dictator or totalitarian government and generations will be denied opportunity to excel in most things.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Indeed. Jesus perceived that the rich young man in the parable was fixated on his wealth and that it was hindering his spiritual well being. It had become a burden to him that, as Intense suggested, needed to be shed in order for him to be spiritually well. And Jesus rightfully noted that many people worship money and possessions to the exclusion of God in their lives and this is a problem for them.

However, Jesus did not at any time suggest that all the rich were evil or bad or that it was wrong to become rich. In the parable of the talents he supported the rich man who disciplined a servant who did not produce satisfactorily.

Yes, the rich do usually use the working class to become rich. But the working class also uses the rich to accumulate what they have. Remove the rich and all become poor with no means of becoming rich.

To whom much is given, much is expected.
Luke 12:48

Yep. But the scripture is somewhat ambivalent about WHAT is expected. So I look at the rich man who funded the new hospital wing, funded the new musuem planetarium, saw that the inner city school got new computers, started scholarship funds and foundations that enhance the lives of others, etc. etc. etc. as well as he puts money in the bank for others to borrow, invests his income to strengthen business and commerce, and employs sometimes thousands and thousands of people who wouldn't have jobs if he wasn't rich and I admire that man.

I always took that passage to mean that the man who shuts himself off, hoards his wealth, and contributes little or nothing to society is probably in deep spiritual trouble. But the man who makes the world a better place for others with his riches I can't find any reason to fault.

I know if the Left ever finds a way to redistribute all that wealth at the top, then we will all be poor.

You probably know the story of Andrew Carnegie, the richest man in the world,

"To die rich is to die disgraced" - Andrew Carnegie

 

[Foxfyre]

To whom much is given, much is expected.
Luke 12:48

Yep. But the scripture is somewhat ambivalent about WHAT is expected. So I look at the rich man who funded the new hospital wing, funded the new musuem planetarium, saw that the inner city school got new computers, started scholarship funds and foundations that enhance the lives of others, etc. etc. etc. as well as he puts money in the bank for others to borrow, invests his income to strengthen business and commerce, and employs sometimes thousands and thousands of people who wouldn't have jobs if he wasn't rich and I admire that man.

I always took that passage to mean that the man who shuts himself off, hoards his wealth, and contributes little or nothing to society is probably in deep spiritual trouble. But the man who makes the world a better place for others with his riches I can't find any reason to fault.

I know if the Left ever finds a way to redistribute all that wealth at the top, then we will all be poor.

You probably know the story of Andrew Carnegie, the richest man in the world,

"To die rich is to die disgraced" - Andrew Carnegie

Yep. And wouldn't the world have been a poorer place without him. Yet he never suggested that divesting of or disbursing one's wealth should be anybody's business but the person who earned it.

 

[Againsheila]

Yep. But the scripture is somewhat ambivalent about WHAT is expected. So I look at the rich man who funded the new hospital wing, funded the new musuem planetarium, saw that the inner city school got new computers, started scholarship funds and foundations that enhance the lives of others, etc. etc. etc. as well as he puts money in the bank for others to borrow, invests his income to strengthen business and commerce, and employs sometimes thousands and thousands of people who wouldn't have jobs if he wasn't rich and I admire that man.

I always took that passage to mean that the man who shuts himself off, hoards his wealth, and contributes little or nothing to society is probably in deep spiritual trouble. But the man who makes the world a better place for others with his riches I can't find any reason to fault.

I know if the Left ever finds a way to redistribute all that wealth at the top, then we will all be poor.

Not so, it'll only take them a few years to figure out how to become wealthy again. What you think they earned that wealth and can't do it again?

I didn't say permanently poor. But you tear down all the rich and there aren't any jobs, there is no venture capital, the banks are emptied, the foundations closed, the stock market shut up tight. Yes eventually society would regroup and those with the interest, drive, initiative, and smarts to make them successful in entreprenourship will again rise to the top and everything would stabilize......IF......our Constitution and personal liberties are restored. If not, we will be under the thumb of some dictator or totalitarian government and generations will be denied opportunity to excel in most things.

We already have that. That's why we have a shrinking middle class and a growing poor class. And we now have a "political class". You think that's not comparable to England's blue bloods and our whole reason for becoming a country in the first place?

We've tried voting, we've tried demonstrating, what's next?

 

[Foxfyre]

Not so, it'll only take them a few years to figure out how to become wealthy again. What you think they earned that wealth and can't do it again?

I didn't say permanently poor. But you tear down all the rich and there aren't any jobs, there is no venture capital, the banks are emptied, the foundations closed, the stock market shut up tight. Yes eventually society would regroup and those with the interest, drive, initiative, and smarts to make them successful in entreprenourship will again rise to the top and everything would stabilize......IF......our Constitution and personal liberties are restored. If not, we will be under the thumb of some dictator or totalitarian government and generations will be denied opportunity to excel in most things.

We already have that. That's why we have a shrinking middle class and a growing poor class. And we now have a "political class". You think that's not comparable to England's blue bloods and our whole reason for becoming a country in the first place?

We've tried voting, we've tried demonstrating, what's next?

But we don't have more poor and almost all of the poor we do have are rich by most of the world's standards. We have a shrinking middle class mostly because so many of the middle class are joining the ranks of the 'rich'. There would be less disparity I think, however, if the federal government would get out of the business of wealth redistribution altogether and return the responsibility for that to the people. Remove as much burden and regulation as can be done without infringing on the unalienable rights of the people, and you will see jobs available for everybody who wants one. And make it more lucrative to work than to not work, and people will be clamoring for those jobs.

 

[Care4all]

Here is the Full Passage, which gives more light:

The Rich and the Kingdom of God
17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’[d]”

20 “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”

21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”

24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”

27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

28 Then Peter spoke up, “We have left everything to follow you!”

29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”