Page 2 of 3 [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,528
Location: Texas

30 Apr 2024, 7:40 am

ToughDiamond wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
I dont how Christians can have this cognitive dissonance and think people with billions can go to Heaven when Christ said it is basically impossible for the rich to inherit the Kingdom of God.

Apologists for the massively wealth would likely claim that the relevent verse:

Matthew 19:24 - "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"

doesn't categorically say it's impossible. Their interpretation is that the wealth itself doesn't directly disqualify a man, it's the massive temptation to value his wealth more than he values God. So if his heart is "in the right place," which would be extremely hard for a human being but not quite impossible, and he has the "right attitude" about his money, then he's not disqualified.

Infuriatingly, scripture portrays Jesus as being fond of hyperbole - exaggeration to achieve emphasis - which seems to invalidate the simple argument that "you can't get a camel through the eye of a needle, therefore a rich man can't get into the Kingdom." When Jesus says a thing is impossible, it's unfortunately plausible that he only means it's very hard. The man in the story can't bring himself to obey Jesus and give it all away, thus showing that he was too attached to his wealth to qualify. So I suppose if a very wealthy person claimed to be a good Christian, they could just say that they'd be quite willing to hand over their money......as soon as God opens the heavens and tells them to.

Thus, there is no categorical ban on extreme personal wealth in scripture, and super-rich Christians can hold that God's view of morality, as shown in "His Word," is the morality of choice, that if divine morality clashes with secular morality, then God's view wins every time.

I'm very glad to know that not all Christians agree with that. Despite the watertight appearance of the above, it remains an opinion, an interpretation, t i-the matter can't be definitively laid to rest one way or the other. So the individual Christian can pick whichever side they want. In the same way as a clever lawyer can get you off the hook in a legal case, so can a clever apologist in a matter of scripture. And the side with the most money wins more often.

So, the cognitive dissonance is fixed in the usual way - by rationalising.

Luke 6.24 and James 5.1-6 seem to condemn rich people and say that they are lost.I just think some churches like mine have totally missed the mark on wealth because my church teaches a lot of our members to be multi-millionaires.I dont think Jesus would want His church to teach us how to become worth millions of dollars.



Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,033
Location: New York City (Queens)

30 Apr 2024, 11:46 am

RedDeathFlower13 wrote:
Communists have a history of persecuting religions in favor of creating an atheist state. Not just the Christians and Jews in Eastern Europe but the Chinese have done the same with Taoist and Buddhist religions in their own country (not to mention what they are doing to Uyghurs Muslims today. Yeah I'm still not choosing to forget about that one).

With rare exceptions, governments established through violent revolution of any kind, Communist or otherwise, especially in countries without democratic traditions, have a general tendency to be violently repressive for at least the first 50 to 100 years or so of their existence.

That's an entirely different beast from an already well-established government moving gradually in a communist/socialist-like direction due to political pressures from a mostly (if not entirely) nonviolent mass movement.

Many Western European countries have "social-democratic" mixed economies, much more towards the socialist/communist end of the scale than the U.S.A currently is. It wouldn't hurt the U.S.A. to move gradually in that direction too, it seems to me.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
- My Twitter / "X" (new as of 2021)


ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,801

30 Apr 2024, 4:00 pm

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
Luke 6.24 and James 5.1-6 seem to condemn rich people and say that they are lost.I just think some churches like mine have totally missed the mark on wealth because my church teaches a lot of our members to be multi-millionaires.I dont think Jesus would want His church to teach us how to become worth millions of dollars.

Luke: But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.

Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.


They'd probably wriggle out of that by saying that by the same token we're not even allowed to laugh or eat properly - so only criticism of the super-rich from the very poor and miserable is without hypocrisy. And if they then say the whole passage was never intended to be taken literally, few would wish to contradict them.

James 5:1-6 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.

Again, the Prosperity Gospel set can simply go into their "it's OK to be rich" echo chamber and comfort themselves with notions such as:
Prosperity Gospel apologism wrote:
1. James only meant those who had acquired their wealth by dishonest means (e.g. failing to pay wages at all, and murder).
2. He was referring to punishments on Earth, not after death.
3. He was only warning of the spiritual danger the wealthy face if they happen to succumb to actual greed and self-indulgence. A truly pious heart would be untouched by riches.


Not that I agree with them of course. My point is that people can interpret scripture to support practically anything they like, if they're determined enough. It's full of loopholes. Scripture hasn't even quantitatively defined what qualifies as "rich." Do they mean me?

There's a delicious irony here - you're apparently wealthier than I am but are quoting scripture that seems to forbid wealth, while I'm finding interpretational excuses for wealth in scripture. 8)



Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,528
Location: Texas

30 Apr 2024, 6:10 pm

ToughDiamond wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
Luke 6.24 and James 5.1-6 seem to condemn rich people and say that they are lost.I just think some churches like mine have totally missed the mark on wealth because my church teaches a lot of our members to be multi-millionaires.I dont think Jesus would want His church to teach us how to become worth millions of dollars.

Luke: But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.

Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.


They'd probably wriggle out of that by saying that by the same token we're not even allowed to laugh or eat properly - so only criticism of the super-rich from the very poor and miserable is without hypocrisy. And if they then say the whole passage was never intended to be taken literally, few would wish to contradict them.

James 5:1-6 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.

Again, the Prosperity Gospel set can simply go into their "it's OK to be rich" echo chamber and comfort themselves with notions such as:
Prosperity Gospel apologism wrote:
1. James only meant those who had acquired their wealth by dishonest means (e.g. failing to pay wages at all, and murder).
2. He was referring to punishments on Earth, not after death.
3. He was only warning of the spiritual danger the wealthy face if they happen to succumb to actual greed and self-indulgence. A truly pious heart would be untouched by riches.


Not that I agree with them of course. My point is that people can interpret scripture to support practically anything they like, if they're determined enough. It's full of loopholes. Scripture hasn't even quantitatively defined what qualifies as "rich." Do they mean me?

There's a delicious irony here - you're apparently wealthier than I am but are quoting scripture that seems to forbid wealth, while I'm finding interpretational excuses for wealth in scripture. 8)

Correction.My parents are the wealthy ones.I have less 1,000 dollars in the bank and I am on welfare.According to the US Federal Government I am worth less than 2,000 dollars because of the 2,000 dollar rule.I am most likely worth less than 1,000 plus personal belongings.I make less 1,000 a month in government income.So are you worth more than 1,000 to 2,000 US dollars because you are wealthier than me according to the feds if you are.My parents are leaving money to me in a trust fund but the money will never be mine to do with what I want.I only live in a nice place because my parents are worth millions but I am personally am worth less than 2,000 dollars in assets.I would not consider my parents rich at all because they are just everyday millionaires not super rich or anything like that.I dont consider a few million to be rich.



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,801

30 Apr 2024, 8:08 pm

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
Correction.My parents are the wealthy ones.I have less 1,000 dollars in the bank and I am on welfare.According to the US Federal Government I am worth less than 2,000 dollars because of the 2,000 dollar rule.I am most likely worth less than 1,000 plus personal belongings.I make less 1,000 a month in government income.So are you worth more than 1,000 to 2,000 US dollars because you are wealthier than me according to the feds if you are.My parents are leaving money to me in a trust fund but the money will never be mine to do with what I want.I only live in a nice place because my parents are worth millions but I am personally am worth less than 2,000 dollars in assets.I would not consider my parents rich at all because they are just everyday millionaires not super rich or anything like that.I dont consider a few million to be rich.

Sorry for my mistake. Hope you don't think I was having a go at you. I just thought there was an innocently humorous irony there, but perhaps not. What is the $2000 rule?

Like I said, Scripture hasn't even quantitatively defined what qualifies as "rich."
It's also hard in general to define "rich" in a hard-and-fast way. There's an income component and a capital component, then there are material assets other than money, and of course what's written down on paper isn't necessarily the same thing as reality when it comes to ownership, and not all the discrepancies are due to blatant lies.

I don't know if I'm wealthier than you or not. I do know that I've been unable to increase my savings for several years, and my income has been slowly falling. I was considerably richer in real terms before I started sharing my money with my partner, and most of the additional losses have been because of her genuine but very expensive health problems, plus the fact that it's necessary to run a car in the USA. Quite how much capital an individual or couple are supposed to need as a protection against a rainy day depends on the individual's circumstances and is pretty imponderable. Certainly we don't feel very safe financially, and because of that we don't buy luxuries. Not that I'd really want to anyway.

Anyway, it's still ironic on my side that I've contributed all those scriptural interpretation excuses for the wealthy. Of course I don't agree with them. I'm an atheist, so for me scripture is pretty irrelevent in any case. I once thought it might be possible to prove the hypocrisy of the super-rich via scripture, but scripture is too vague to pin them down. I see the key inequalities between people as artificial and negative, so I guess that makes me a Leftie.



Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,528
Location: Texas

30 Apr 2024, 8:36 pm

ToughDiamond wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
Correction.My parents are the wealthy ones.I have less 1,000 dollars in the bank and I am on welfare.According to the US Federal Government I am worth less than 2,000 dollars because of the 2,000 dollar rule.I am most likely worth less than 1,000 plus personal belongings.I make less 1,000 a month in government income.So are you worth more than 1,000 to 2,000 US dollars because you are wealthier than me according to the feds if you are.My parents are leaving money to me in a trust fund but the money will never be mine to do with what I want.I only live in a nice place because my parents are worth millions but I am personally am worth less than 2,000 dollars in assets.I would not consider my parents rich at all because they are just everyday millionaires not super rich or anything like that.I dont consider a few million to be rich.

Sorry for my mistake. Hope you don't think I was having a go at you. I just thought there was an innocently humorous irony there, but perhaps not. What is the $2000 rule?

Like I said, Scripture hasn't even quantitatively defined what qualifies as "rich."
It's also hard in general to define "rich" in a hard-and-fast way. There's an income component and a capital component, then there are material assets other than money, and of course what's written down on paper isn't necessarily the same thing as reality when it comes to ownership, and not all the discrepancies are due to blatant lies.

I don't know if I'm wealthier than you or not. I do know that I've been unable to increase my savings for several years, and my income has been slowly falling. I was considerably richer in real terms before I started sharing my money with my partner, and most of the additional losses have been because of her genuine but very expensive health problems, plus the fact that it's necessary to run a car in the USA. Quite how much capital an individual or couple are supposed to need as a protection against a rainy day depends on the individual's circumstances and is pretty imponderable. Certainly we don't feel very safe financially, and because of that we don't buy luxuries. Not that I'd really want to anyway.

Anyway, it's still ironic on my side that I've contributed all those scriptural interpretation excuses for the wealthy. Of course I don't agree with them. I'm an atheist, so for me scripture is pretty irrelevent in any case. I once thought it might be possible to prove the hypocrisy of the super-rich via scripture, but scripture is too vague to pin them down. I see the key inequalities between people as artificial and negative, so I guess that makes me a Leftie.

Lol its totally fine and okay.The 2,000 dollar rule is for people like myself who are on welfare and it means they can only have 2,000 dollars or less in the bank or total assets before they lose their benefits such as medicare and medicaid.I get a social security check every month and i could manage without because of my parents but the real kicker about the 2,000 dollar rule for myself personally is that I would lose my healthcare and I have 100,000 to 150,000 in medical bills per year that the feds cover.

The 2,000 dollar rule is essentially a poverty trap in my opinion.Ya you are right that there is no single definition for wealth however I think it would be safe to assume that Jesus prolly considers everyone on the Forbes 400 to be rich in His book.I just think Jesus would have told us a dollar amount that He would think was rich if he really wanted to.However I think virtually every American may be in danger of being lost for wealth because pretty much American is richer than people in India or Africa.I think even someone in Oklahoma or Arkansas or Mississippi or New Mexico could be considered part of the global super rich compared to the poorest of the poor people on earth who live on 1 dollar or 2 dollars or less a day.



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,801

30 Apr 2024, 11:29 pm

^
$2000 savings allowance seems very mean. And yes, by 3rd World standards most of us are rolling in gold. So if this "rich but pure of heart" defense turns out to be wrong, we're all going to be roasted for eternity. Thank God I'm an atheist.



Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,528
Location: Texas

07 May 2024, 4:06 pm

TwilightPrincess wrote:
So many denominations of Christianity in the US are homophobic and sexist. Some still preach racism too. Evangelicals persecuting people is a huge problem we’re currently facing, and it could get worse.

Its illegal for churches to discriminate on the basis of race in America.They are supposed to lose tax-exempt status if they do so and the IRS determines they did.



TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 26,675
Location: Hell

07 May 2024, 4:10 pm

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
TwilightPrincess wrote:
So many denominations of Christianity in the US are homophobic and sexist. Some still preach racism too. Evangelicals persecuting people is a huge problem we’re currently facing, and it could get worse.

Its illegal for churches to discriminate on the basis of race in America.They are supposed to lose tax-exempt status if they do so and the IRS determines they did.

It’s pretty rare for churches to lose their tax exempt status. It’s not like the IRS is monitoring churches closely. From what I’ve seen, a church has to engage in a lot of hurtful s**t before anything happens. I don’t think any religious organization should be tax exempt.



Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,528
Location: Texas

07 May 2024, 6:02 pm

TwilightPrincess wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
TwilightPrincess wrote:
So many denominations of Christianity in the US are homophobic and sexist. Some still preach racism too. Evangelicals persecuting people is a huge problem we’re currently facing, and it could get worse.

Its illegal for churches to discriminate on the basis of race in America.They are supposed to lose tax-exempt status if they do so and the IRS determines they did.

It’s pretty rare for churches to lose their tax exempt status. It’s not like the IRS is monitoring churches closely. From what I’ve seen, a church has to engage in a lot of hurtful s**t before anything happens. I don’t think any religious organization should be tax exempt.

I think there is a very real possibility of all churches losing their tax exemption at some point in my lifetime.But be careful what you wish for because once that happens churches will be able to do all the electioneering from the pulpit out in the open and they will be able to give billions to Congress to influence legislation.I know a lot of them do get involved with politics but they will be more out in the open about it without any fear of real consequences.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 28,532
Location: Right over your left shoulder

07 May 2024, 6:05 pm

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
I think there is a very real possibility of all churches losing their tax exemption at some point in my lifetime.But be careful what you wish for because once that happens churches will be able to do all the electioneering from the pulpit out in the open and they will be able to give billions to Congress to influence legislation.I know a lot of them do get involved with politics but they will be more out in the open about it without any fear of real consequences.


I guess it's largely a question of how much more engaged they could possibly become once that occurs because they already do a lot of what they're not allowed to without repercussions.


_________________
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas, this is part of our strategy” —Netanyahu
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
Faschismus ist die Gewalt der Schwachen.


Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,528
Location: Texas

07 May 2024, 6:30 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
I think there is a very real possibility of all churches losing their tax exemption at some point in my lifetime.But be careful what you wish for because once that happens churches will be able to do all the electioneering from the pulpit out in the open and they will be able to give billions to Congress to influence legislation.I know a lot of them do get involved with politics but they will be more out in the open about it without any fear of real consequences.


I guess it's largely a question of how much more engaged they could possibly become once that occurs because they already do a lot of what they're not allowed to without repercussions.

Good point.They can get involved with the politics of ballot measures and stuff like that on a limited basis.One example that would be okay would be if a church of Christ got its members to vote against a ballot measure that allow for the sale of alcohol in a city or county.They can preach about moral issues that can also be political issues like abortion.However they cant speak against or for a candidate from the pulpit or anything like that but I think it would be fine if the pastor took out a ad in the paper telling the public who they endorse as a private citizen.Also a very limited amount of their activity is allowed to be political but the IRS by and large is not enforcing out.However I think all churches could most likely lose tax-exempt status regardless.



Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,528
Location: Texas

07 May 2024, 6:35 pm

TwilightPrincess wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
TwilightPrincess wrote:
So many denominations of Christianity in the US are homophobic and sexist. Some still preach racism too. Evangelicals persecuting people is a huge problem we’re currently facing, and it could get worse.

Its illegal for churches to discriminate on the basis of race in America.They are supposed to lose tax-exempt status if they do so and the IRS determines they did.

It’s pretty rare for churches to lose their tax exempt status. It’s not like the IRS is monitoring churches closely. From what I’ve seen, a church has to engage in a lot of hurtful s**t before anything happens. I don’t think any religious organization should be tax exempt.

Good point and even then it may not be enough because one example would be the Mormon church had a secret hedge fund that had 30 to 100 billion dollars in it and they were violating SEC guidelines so the SEC fined them 5 million which was just a drop in the bucket and it would be like pennies for us.I think they should of lost tax-exempt status.I think that same hedge fund has about 200 billion in it now and it is 100 percent tax-free.



Harmonie
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 2024
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 318
Location: New England

07 May 2024, 9:27 pm

At this point, the IRS is not going after churches for anything. I don't know the precise reason for that, but it's ridiculous because churches are not only breaking the rules, but they are flaunting it. And what is the result of that? White Evangelicalism has become so intertwined with Republican politics that it's the religion is darn well near unrecognizable at this point. Some of these churches have services that are just political advertisement at this point.

I'm pretty outraged at everything churches get away with, from keeping abuse hidden and not even punishing abusers, to meddling in politics to unconstitutionally enforce their religion on all of us, to "faith healing" and discouragement of medical treatment (and when religious parents deny their children the care they need) to the whole prosperity gospel scam. I just... UGH. Something needs to be done. I just don't know what. :(


_________________
Diagnosed with ADHD, Strongly Suspecting I'm also Autistic


Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,528
Location: Texas

07 May 2024, 10:44 pm

Harmonie wrote:
At this point, the IRS is not going after churches for anything. I don't know the precise reason for that, but it's ridiculous because churches are not only breaking the rules, but they are flaunting it. And what is the result of that? White Evangelicalism has become so intertwined with Republican politics that it's the religion is darn well near unrecognizable at this point. Some of these churches have services that are just political advertisement at this point.

I'm pretty outraged at everything churches get away with, from keeping abuse hidden and not even punishing abusers, to meddling in politics to unconstitutionally enforce their religion on all of us, to "faith healing" and discouragement of medical treatment (and when religious parents deny their children the care they need) to the whole prosperity gospel scam. I just... UGH. Something needs to be done. I just don't know what. :(

The governments hands are tied because of the 1st Amendment so I would not expect much to be done for the time being.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,039
Location: Adelaide, Australia

08 May 2024, 4:38 am

This reminds me of a thread I saw on WP a few years ago. Someone asked, why has Evangelical Christianity stolen the Right?

He was corrected several times over. Evangelical Christianity has not stolen the Right. It is the other way around.

This is the group who, in the past would say "We're not concerned with worldly matters like earthy governments, for our kingdom is not of this earth." And so they avoided politics.

They didn't take over politics. Politics took over them. But why?

While I don't think Evangelical Christianity contains any ill-will or malice that would require it to subvert politics, it has a massive vulnerability.

It says that God is absolutely perfect and everything he says is perfect. He cannot possibly be mistaken and he never lies. So when God says something you can be 100% percent positive that's absolutely true. There's literally no chance it could be wrong.

So when the (self-proclaimed) man of God says "God says this, God says that". You know it must be true. 100%

Never mind if God didn't tell you the thing in person. Maybe God was too busy. Or maybe God only talks to important people like your pastor.

Fortunately your pastor in his generosity and wisdom deigned to tell you that "God told me to tell you this thing".

And you know it must be true. 100%. Because God would never lie to anyone, let alone a pastor.

And so it never occurs to you that it could be the pastor who's lying. Maybe God didn't tell him to tell you. Maybe God has never spoken to the pastor at all, in spite of the pastor's claims otherwise.

So this is the vulnerability. When you teach people from early childhood that there's a 100% perfect authority like God and that us mere imperfect humans can act as his messenger, you create a vulnerability to manipulation.

When it's just the pastor doing it, it's almost harmless. Most of the time.

But when the politician also says he's a man of God... Well, how could God's messenger lie? You know that God is perfect.

If it was just the pastor you'd be relatively safe. He doesn't want to hurt you (much). And he doesn't want to scam you out of more than a tithe of your income.

(a tithe to be calculated based on your gross income, not your net income. Remember that point very carefully or your blessed pastor may start quoting 1 timothy 5:18)

When Sony implemented a rootkit on their audio CDs, they didn't want to damage your computer (much). They just wanted root level access to your computer to stop you from ripping their CDs.

The problem was that once Sony had gained root level access to your computer, other malware could also use it to access your computer's deepest levels.

Likewise once pastor has gained root level access to your brain, other malevolent actors like politicians can also use it to access the deepest levels of your belief.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short