SageOfHalo

The short answer is, yes they can. Although, as several people have pointed out ,their money doesn't travel all that well.

The reason that Jesus told that rich man to sell everything and follow him was to prove how once you start loving your wealth and worldly possessions more than God, it will become impossible for you to actually follow Jesus and his teachings.

But that doesn't mean that God's blessings won't include the enough money to provide for your needs.

@Naka: So, if the Bible isn't divine in origin, please explain how it could be written by over 40 people, during the course of many years, and still all fit together, without contradicting itself? Just askin'.

Tsuna

...I fucking lol'd.

Also; they have a name for books written by a collection of authors. They're called anthologies. Go figure. 8D

Jaxon

Yes, they will go to hell, enjoy your hypocrisy.

Law&Order

What hypocrisy. Those that have earned it honestly as payment from one man to another for his labor as deemed fair between the two are safe from any man or beings judgement. I am a contractor that offers my services to those in need of my service. I am paid upon completion of my service. My purpose / drive does not come from a love of money but the love of my work and my greater responsibility to provide for my family. I use the money I make to buy the services of others to provide for me and my family. To hate, scorn or condemn another man for honestly making money is the true hypocrisy. But realize that there is a differentiation between honestly earning the money you make and a looter like Al Gore. Who wants to profit off of pedaling falsehoods and stands to benefit from government laws. Their are rich looters and poor looters as well as rich moochers and poor moochers. The bible does not command me to help those that can help themselves. No, God commands me to defend those who cannot defend themselves. Just because someone is poor does not mean they are defenseless and just because someone is rich does not mean they are evil.

__________________

RNB

No one is criticizing hard-earned money. However, I am sure that if Jesus had a ton of money, he would probably give it away to the poor. Jesus didn't have many possessions because he was busy trying to heal people and preach to people. Of course, I am assuming that a Christian's goal is to be like Christ.

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

Law&Order

Jesus's calling from God was what it was. He was called to preach. Everyone is called to preach. But who said that preaching means speaking. Who said that giving up all of your possessions is the only way to be Christian. Don't those who lead with their actions also preach with their actions? Our first problem with this debate though is that we are excepting that wealth is a bad thing. Nowhere in the bible does it say that wealth is bad. The bible urges people to use their wealth for good. So the second problem with the debate is what is good.

Is the government good because it gives money to the poor that they have taken from others? What if the money they gave was used by the poor to buy drugs and used for violence. Then aren't they just creating more evil. Is it good that the money given helps 1 person but enslaves 100 others?

So now we reach the third problem. If money taken is given to those who have not earned it is the money (wealth) of any value. My answer is no. That money that has not been earned through the labor of ones mind is of no value the minute it touches their hands. It may make them momentarily wealthy but that wealth will be lost. Take the recent crash of the housing market for example. The government foremost and the banks additionally gave out wealth to those they knew had not earned it and could not afford it. For years wealth and money were created. But under the premise that money unearned is of no value that wealth disappeared taking a lot of earned money with it. It takes your mind to make money not an open hand.

Back to the Christian question. I am a Christian and feel that wealth and money is the worse thing I can turn over to those who haven't earned it. That is the worst disservice I could do to any man on this earth. To turn him into a slave of my generosity. To get pleasure out of knowing that he needs my sorrow for him. But the greatest pleasure I can get is letting that same man earn my money. To pay him his due as I reap more wealth to in turn help pay other men their due's for money earned. You are right I won't be able to take money with me but I will be damned if I leave it behind to spread more sin, more apathy. And it is wrong for any man to try and accuse me of hypocrisy for a situation he obviously does not understand.

__________________

aeondrift

How can followers of Christ justify remaining willing to give a significant part of their earnings to the poor, seeing how so many people out there are starving each day? Didn't the bible state that God is the provider, and those who have faith in Him will be taken care of? So what's the point in wealth accumulation, instead of giving all excess to the poor, if you are a true believer of God's existance?

Why is there a need to buy that television set or spend money watching that movie and other unnecessary earthly pleasures and to buy things that you do not need?

Why take the irrational chance of risking your eternal place in heaven at all, for some finite earthly pleasures to satisfy selfish personal greed?

RNB

Old argument is old.

__________________
"Nature loves to be hidden."

- Heraclitus

aeondrift

As I've said, why risk it at all? Are you so attached to your material wealth that you're unwilling to give them all up to feed that poor and homeless?

For Atheists, it is understandable, since they don't have morals (apparently), but if you are aiming to go to heaven, doing every single thing to maximize your chance to pass through the pearly gates is the only sensible thing to do.

Knowing that countless of people starving and living in extreme poverty, to remain unwilling to give up all that savings and excess earnings (and not trusting that God would be the provider in times of need) would be a clear sign of attachment to material wealth no matter how you might rationalize against the virtue of "selflessly helping as many poor people as you can". That one thing that stands between you and God.

aeondrift

People come and go. Topic remains a valid and relevant point to debate upon.

I can either start a new topic, or I can "resurrect" [pun intended] this one to (hopefully) bring some "life" to this quite forum.

ACt

Yes. This argument is old - but it still produces gems like this:

Oh, I laugh at you. (even with the "(apparently)").

aeondrift

FIY it was sacarsm. I do not believe in the probable existance of any kind of personal god(s).

aeondrift

Regardless of the rationalisation, it is not about what we thinks ultimately, but what Jesus said.

ACt

Ah. Then I laugh with you.

But seriously - we're having some real issues with the sarcasm people. Make it blatant.

Miburo

This topic does suck. Make a new one that isn't about stupid god shit. All the theists around here are pussies now. Except for the few manly/hawt ones with red names, of course.