/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

bump

>>700109

Personal question to you: Why do you need this answered? I think we should give away all we have minus what is needed to maintain the body and the soul (soul needs are a Bible, rosary, a few spiritual books, an icon or two, stuff like that, nothing extravagant like building a chapel in your house tho') to the poor. It seems like you do too, just do it. Who cares what others think about it? No matter what they say, they will have to admit it is better to do that (give all extra things to the poor), and if it is better, that means more heavenly rewards. Go for the heavenly rewards. We can't even imagine a small amount of those treasures God has for us, imagine how much better it would be to have many? Just do it.

>>700115

The reason why I don't do it is because I am torn. I believe that it is a fundamental right of man to use and acquire wealth, and the only context in which you are morally obligated to give up wealth is as punishment. But, I don't feel like having wealth makes you guilty of sin by default, so I have a hard time imagining that it would be fair and just to give it up for no reason.

>>700119

No matter how "fundamental" you may think this so-called right is, knowing the impending Second Coming, all wealth is worthless. It is better to be poor, hungry, and suffering now, as you will have more later. Having wealth doesn't make you guilty of sin, this is true, but it makes it harder to come to God. God especially seeks those who have nothing, and draws near to those who suffer. It's better, and there is no need to be torn. Really, the only question is this: Do you value your 70-some-odd years on an Earth to be burned more than having more glory (a larger fill of happiness) in eternity?

Less is more anyway. The more you give up (of anything really) the freer you become.

>>700124

We by owning a computer represent the top 1% of the world's wealthy at least. So just be being here we are evidence of not fulfilling this holy (((duty))) outright. And don't you think it's wrong to treat people (whether it's ourselves or others) like workhorse machines whose only purpose is to crank out wealth for the less fortunate? Does this not devolve in communism (although, at least voluntary communism)?

>>700124

This is a really big issue for me. I'm on the verge of fully converting but I just can't get past this, I won't subscribe to a morality of enslavement that elevates the poor so far beyond the rich that just by being BORN well off you accrue some vague, ambiguous debt to those worse off. It's just as arbitrary and classcist as believing you have the right to commit crime because you have the capital to afford the fines.

>>700109

>He does

Oh, boy. Yet another person who takes a modern view of Matthew 19. I love these posts coming up every five minutes.

>if so, how??? explain

The potentate who punished his servant for being wicked to someone of his stature after begging for mercy to him. The landowner who lost his son and servants to wicked tenants. As part of example, but the Lord did not see these men as evil. Far from it in fact, it was those under them taking advantage of the master and the other poor that Jesus pointed out as being unacceptable, in clear reference to what God will do to man in the future.

>how does this not conflict with conservatism

How would it? Define conservatism?

>consumerist lifestyles

Consumerism and decadency is a sign of clear disorder anyway. But that doesn't mean you can't be prosperous as well.

>it is your godly obligation to give away all the excess money

How much is an excess? What about saving money in case you have a sudden short fall in case you cannot give another or Caesar his due? How much can you save without being sinful? What are the answers to those questions?

>>700126

>We by owning a computer represent the top 1% of the world's wealthy at least

Maybe 10 years ago, but computers are much cheaper now. You might be on the upper end but your statistical outlook is about 20-30 years old. And not counting cellphones, which are also virtually computers now as well. In which case most of the world is wired.

>And don't you think it's wrong to treat people (whether it's ourselves or others) like workhorse machines whose only purpose is to crank out wealth for the less fortunate?

I think if you "cranked out wealth for the less fortunate"…well, I think you need to reword this slightly.

>Does this not devolve in communism

You can have a devolution into Communism if you follow trash like Liberation Theology. But there is also Distributism, which you don't seem to be taking into account.

>>700126

Yes, we are wealthy and fortunate. I'm of the belief Christians should give up their computers, as it is the same as communing with people, and God is found in solitude, but that's another story. I've given mine to my mom and have borrowed hers for a while, but I digress. It's not treating a person like a workhorse, the purpose of giving away wealth has little to do with the actual poor, and like I have emphasized, everything to do with greater rewards in heaven. That is what we are aiming for, what goes on here is pretty much irrelevant except the battle against sinning.

>>700133

See above. You are not born in some "debt", we are just called to help our neighbors, and to love God. The latter is easier to do in poverty. As above, none of this has to do with the going-ons of Earth, but everything to do with getting closer to God. Stop thinking of this life so much.

>>700119

Abraham and Job died as rich men, but God awarded them accordingly to their faith. The problem is that many people these days essentially worship money instead of God and they're the ones going to the pit like those prosperity Gospel types. That said, with great power comes great responsibility. You don't have to give up your stuff, but you have to give up the love of your stuff. Hope you can take this into prayerful consideration and to read your Bible cover-to-cover.

https://z3news.com/w/category/news/financial-news/crypto-currencies/

>>700139

I can't argue with either of these points, theologically, although I disagree with them. I would say you and >>700136 have some interesting discussion potential, however…

>>700136

>Oh, boy. Yet another person who takes a modern view of Matthew 19. I love these posts coming up every five minutes

Please explain. I dislike this interpretation myself, but have found no refutation of it.

>Consumerism and decadency is a sign of clear disorder anyway. But that doesn't mean you can't be prosperous as well.

Please help me understand at what point "consumerist" and "prosperous" diverge.

>How much is an excess? What about saving money in case you have a sudden short fall in case you cannot give another or Caesar his due? How much can you save without being sinful? What are the answers to those questions?

Excess being define exactly how much money you would require to survive, given those conditions: you cannot reasonably expect to survive through consistent tax evasion, or lack of savings. However, this steal leaves a very large margin of what would be considered "excess". And the second two questions are what I'M asking, haha. If it is neither "give all you have to the poor", or "save and gain as much wealth as you want, while donating whatever you want", what is the proper balance? Because in terms of Scripture I can find no evidence of equal wealth and charity.

>I think if you "cranked out wealth for the less fortunate"…well, I think you need to reword this slightly.

I do not understand, please elaborate.

>You can have a devolution into Communism if you follow trash like Liberation Theology. But there is also Distributism, which you don't seem to be taking into account.

I don't think you understand what I said: if there is no Scripture supporting a SPECIFIC balance of wealth and charity, the obvious result of a "maximize charitable giving" view of Christ is that of voluntary communism: not state mandated, but by choice.

>>700139

>Yes, we are wealthy and fortunate. I'm of the belief Christians should give up their computers, as it is the same as communing with people,

Although now, on further review, is it not also sinful to waste time? Should we not utterly maximize the amount of good we are producing? This is not objectively wrong in a "give all you have" view of Christ…

>>700145

Ignoring the crypto, since I don't trade it.

>The problem is that many people these days essentially worship money instead of God

So I challenge you this: in a world like today devoid of the tests of faith like Abraham and Job had to face, isn't the best way of truly proving/testing your faith in God and not money by giving it all away? How can you be sure? This argument seems to me to still run into Biblical pitfalls.

The reason why we are not obligated to give away all we have minus that which we need to survive is that there is a difference between *precept* (aka *obligation*) and *counsel*.

Obligations are the kinds of things that if you fail to meet them, it's a sin. Someone who meets every obligation they have before God will go to heaven.

Counsels are the kinds of things that do not bind under pain of sin, but are means of becoming perfect for those who are called to it.

Voluntary Gospel poverty is a counsel from Christ, not a precept. "What must I do *to enter into life*", the young rich man asks, and Christ says: Keep the commandments. In other words, keeping the commandments suffices to enter into life. But the young man says that he's already done that since his youth. So Christ suggests something *above and beyond* the minimum: "*If you want to be perfect*, go, sell all you have and give the money to the poor, etc."

Note the difference between "If you want to enter into life" and "If you want to be perfect". That's the difference between precept and counsel, and that's also the reason why it's no sin to own personal property.

>Because wealth is ok so long as we use it in godly ways (not a refutation, and no one does this)

No one uses their wealth in godly ways? You can't think of anyone? People who donate large sums to Christian missions? People who run honest Christian businesses that pay their employees living wages? None of them are using their wealth in godly ways?

>Because (((in context))) Jesus never says to give away all your money (spoilers He does)

Yes, as a *counsel*. Not as a moral obligation.

>Because there were rich people in the Bible that were also holy (if so, how??? explain)

The rich man Joseph of Arimathea, who gave his tomb for Jesus to be buried in, would be one example.

>>700152

You can't work your way into Heaven, but you can't faith your way into Heaven either. You need balance, and the Holy Spirit will give you this balance.

That said, if you make a vow before God you need to fulfill your vow whatever that maybe. But the Bible warns against making rash vows (read the story regarding King Saul and his foolish vows).

>>700158

>Voluntary Gospel poverty is a counsel from Christ, not a precept.

Wow, thank you so much. I didn't even think to read it like that. Very very excellent point. Can I ask where the idea of counsels and obligations come from? I think this is exactly the explaination I needed, I was really struggling with the idea that Jesus was completely against all wealth.

>>700161

>You can't work your way into Heaven, but you can't faith your way into Heaven either.

Sorry but that seems completely disproven by the man repentant on the cross next to Jesus… he had literally no chance to work his way into heaven (in fact as far as we know he was completely guilty and most likely a murderer), but did so entirely spiritually, through coming to Jesus. I think >>700158 theology is much more sound and consistent with Scripture.

>>700164

Everybody has their own circumstance and God sees all. The repentant man on the cross was rewarded for his due faith. If you live until the ripe old age of 80 you will be judged accordingly. God bless.

>>700167

Thanks for your time. God bless.

>>700109

>Why shouldn't we give away all that we have, minus that which we need to survive?

You sort of do the moment you drop dead.

>>700172

This completely misses the point of my question.

I don't mean merely to give up the "sinful" pleasures of wealth and earthly possession, but does this command from Jesus not also prevent the possibility of art, science, creation, literature, or skill in anything besides charity, in general? This seems to fly in the face of the cultural commandment in Genesis, which lays the charge of subduing the earth and creating human civilization. Obviously I'm not implying Jesus is going against the word of God, but I am inviting you to reconcile this apparent discord.

>>700162

The idea of counsels and obligations arises naturally from the fact that in the Christian life we find things that are good opposed to things that are better.

Another counsel that might make the difference clearer and more obvious is that of chastity, specifically continence. Paul writes in 1 Cor. that to marry is GOOD. But to remain a virgin is BETTER. Similarly, after Christ teaches about the immorality of divorce and remarriage in Matthew, the apostles are dumbfounded and suggest it would be better for a man not to marry. And Christ says: Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given.

If Christ is teaching that the idea that virginity is better than marriage is something that not all men can receive, and the Apostle Paul also says about that very same topic, that marriage is good but virginity is better, and that marriage is no sin, we start to get a very clear idea that there are certain forms of living that are objectively BETTER but which not everyone is called to. We call the Lord's endorsement of those forms of life "counsels".

Not following the counsels is not something that would ever be listed, for example, in a list like the following: "Neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, not effeminate, nor homosexuals…" You would never find in a list like that, "nor owners of personal property, nor the married".

>>700178

Lmfao I should have been much much clearer in my original post, apparently. It's late where I live…

I DON'T support this viewpoint, and I don't necessarily think it's biblical either. I have no agenda, politically or otherwise, besides to find out why this is NOT true. Thanks for the image though

>>700180

I was just reading about that over at the Catholic Wki or whatever it's called, I really am grateful I've found it. It nicely solves this apparent inconsistency.

>never find in a list like that, "nor owners of personal property, nor the married".

Very good point. Thank you so much with this, you've literally saved my faith, I've been struggling with this for a week.

>>700187

Glad I could be useful. God bless you.

>>700191

God bless you as well

>>700109

I think we're called to live humbly and counter-culturally in accordance with our station in life. This can mean many different things depending on the person, their life and their particular walk. This is a very great book on the subject which I highly recommend it:

https://www.amazon.com/Happy-Are-You-Poor-Spiritual/dp/0898709210

Here's a choice quote from it: "What are the world's basic values? These are so taken for granted that no one feels any need to explain or promote them. It is assumed that everyone knows them and that most people live by them. What are these values: prestige is a primary one… bodily comfort and pleasure are indispensable… this life is all we have, so let's enjoy it to the fullest… impressing people with one's possessions and accomplishments and attractiveness is important… sexual excitement and satisfaction are crucial… success is "coming out on top" in relation to others… money is a must, for without it one can have very little of anything else worth having in life.

If we turn to the pages of the New Testament we find a picture as opposite as it could be: humility, being last, unknown, hidden in Christ, is a condition for getting into the Kingdom… prestige is worthless and even an obstacle to greatness… the hard road and the narrow gate, carrying the Cross every day is immensely important… dying to our selfishness and crucifying our illusory desires are indispensable… impressing people is of no importance at all, whereas being pleasing to the divine eyes is everything… virginity is a favored and privileged state, and chaste fidelity in marriage mirrors the very union of Christ and his Church… one may not try to best others, rather he is to serve them as though he were a slave."

>>700126

>We by owning a computer represent the top 1% of the world's wealthy at least.

The 90s called

> Because (((in context))) Jesus never says to give away all your money (spoilers He does)

No, He doesn't. He specifically told that one rich man to do so. He never told us (believers in general) to literally give away all that we have. He did tell us to forsake all that we have (in Luke 14:33), but this means to be willing to give it all up (in other words, to put God first).

To answer your question, though..

By giving away all that we have (minus that which we need to survive), we are putting ourselves in a situation where the smallest "unfortunate event" could end up in a real disaster (e.g. the washing machine, oven, toilet, or car suddenly stops working). Of course, God will take care of us if He puts us in such a situation, or if He specifically asks us to give away what we have (1 Kings 17:8-15), but if we put ourselves in such a situation, then it seems to me like we're testing God, which never worked out for anyone.. That being said, God loves a cheerful giver, so give if you desire to do so!

>>700109

>Tell, me, is this true?

Yes

>how does this not conflict with[…]

>conservatism

define.

>consumerism

it does. don't be a filthy consumerist.

>Why shouldn't we give away all that we have, minus that which we need to survive?

on this point explicitly, because of prudence. For instance, if you gave away your computer, you wouldn't be able to go on tirades on imageboards to goad people into helping the poor. This lowers total opportunity for poor-helping, and it would thus be imprudent for you to give this piece of property away, because it serves the ends of "love your neighbour" better to retain and use it than to give it away like an idiot.

>Because wealth is ok so long as we use it in godly ways (not a refutation, and no one does this)

>no one does this

I still see that you have that computer…

The reason why you dont do this is because people depend on material goods.

And those who don't give up their material goods in a world where everyone else does, end up ruling the masses through their dependencies. (Pretty much the world we have right now.)

That is all.

>>700148

Most likely. If you're not doing something else, at least pray. The Jesus prayer is good for this when you get the grace of it happening 24/7, as you can do anything while praying.

>>700109

Oh yes, a socialist's #1 hobby: thinking about what to do with other people's money.

Why don't you lead by example instead?

>don't have surplus of any kind

Yet, he who hates his own family is worse than a pagan. Prosperity is not self-imposed poverty, it is a tool that can be used for good or evil. The question is, do you use what God has given you wisely or not?

If you are a rich man, do you use your money for good or do you simply hoard it for yourself with the intent of letting it all evaporate with your death? Do you tithe? Do you buy from or invest in Christian merchants (e.g. Chick-Fil-A) over abortion-peddling/funding merchants?

Satan's people use their wealth to undermine the lives of good people, but a wealthy man can serve God by pumping money into godly action.

Proverbs 6:6

Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise:

Ants work non stop when they can in good weather. They build tunnels, harvest and store food and care for their young. All these activities are essentially saving for the future. They don't just go out and collect what they need for the current day or next week living hand to mouth.

If everyone really were to sell everything and just abandon it all we'd have a major societal collapse. Jesus did call for great amounts of charity but he didn't call for a total social upheaval or revolution away from all wealth, and while he did ask the Apostles to go out with essentially nothing to spread the word he did not demand this for everyone.

>>700109

Why should we all give away our excess money to others and make others rich?

Or even better: what with the excess of wealth created by there being no needy people anymore?

We can't give it to the poor now, they don't exist!

So, we stop working?

It doesn't matter how much money you have, you can have a ton of it or none of it. In fact, you have exactly how much God wants you to have, no more, no less.

It only matters how much faith you have and how many seeds of faith you can plant in others that themselves grow to become prosperous fruit trees of faith.

If you can do this with lots of money, that's what you should do. If you can only do it with the extreme humiliation of being poor, that's what you should do.

Spoiler: giving all your money to the poor doesn't necessarily make them faithful.

You don't really need anything to survive. Just drink from streams and fast.

>>700119

Having or enjoying money is NOT a sin. Loving Money is the sin. As for charity, you should give what you feel like, what you give from the heart. Sure giveing away ALL is ideal but do you really want too? God knows your heart and intention matters a lot to HIM.