• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Social Justice

Job was a very wealthy man to begin with. Spiritually and materially.The Bible was clear about what kind of fortune God blessed Job with after he passed the test.

Literalism. What can you say about literalism. You probably think Satan and God really held a little confab in another dimension and discussed Job's fate.

There's nothing to take metaphorically since both are covered: spiritually and materially![/B]

Thus it clearly shows, wealth can also be a blessing from God.

Yep, the Hebrew Scriptures and their tribal views include the notion that God will enrich and make powerful those who believe in him and not Moloch. Are you claiming Jesus taught that? Where?

He taught the opposite:

Matthew 24:9 - "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.


Luke 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. . . .But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation.



So did Peter:

Peter 1:4 "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; 13 but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing; so that also at the revelation of His glory, you may rejoice with exultation.
 
Last edited:
In both KJV and NKJV, James brought up Job as an example. You can't discount the story of Job.

You act as if these are two texts. James mentions Job as an example of steadfastness. Characters in the Old Testament can stand for a lot of symbolic virtues in the New Testament. It doesn't change the fact that the idea that God makes good people rich is totally and completely alien to the Christian sensibility and the teachings of Jesus.

It's telling that you ignore all the Jesus and James and Paul taught about the condemnation of the poor and focus on Job, as if that it the critical text.

Again, why are you ignoring the beatitudes, which are crystal clear: the poor will be rewarded; the rich have chosen their reward -- money -- and will get nothing else.

Luke 6 - "And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God...But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation."

What's your socioeconomic gloss of this?
 
We don't judge individuals, we judge systems and institutions,

Who's "we?" You and Joaquin? Joaquin is judging all rich people and concluding that wealth is evil, that all rich people are damned.

Who makes systems and institutions? People! Thus, everything boils down to free will - unless we are forced to be part of a system/institution/ such as a socialist ideal (that takes away the individual's free will).


but I think there is a difference between lottery ticket buying and wallstreet manipulation and speculation, lottery tickey buying generally has to do with a hope to get out of the rut, a hope against hopes, wallstreet manipulation and speculation is the wealthy trying to get MORE wealth and power, it's more a power thing than just hoping for a better life.

Baloney! The ones who are in a rut are the ones who cannot afford the basic necessities of life - FOOD and SHELTER! That's all a human being needs!
Why do you think Jesus told us not to worry? And pointed to the birds as an example of how God will provide? Do all birds live in golden cages, with techno gadget feeders that comes with fountains?


It's all about LOVE OF MONEY! They're all the same!

But again, had a poor person been in the wallstreet guys situation he'd probably act the same way, that's because what the institutions and the such demand.

It's not the institution that makes that demand. It is, straying away from God. They're lured by the treasures of this world.


I'ts not about judging morally individuals.

So who are you judging when you say, "institution?" The building? :lol:


Yes, but that say's nothing about wealth today, or wealth gotten through systems like capitalism, people in wallstreet today and corporate boardrooms are not getting their wealth through faith in God, and post loosing everything for God, they get it through controlign capital.

Why do you whine so much about their wealth? You're not simply whining.....you're smearing! You don't know what goes on in those board meetings - that there are those who try to correct the system and do the best they can for the good of the country. Why do we have whistleblowers, as an example?

You tar all people who sits in corporate boardrooms without knowing anything about them except that they're wearing suits and work in Wall Street! That's slander! Bearing false witness!


Look the Job story was about one who lost everything without knowing the reason, and maintained his faith in God, and about the friends of his trying to workout what happened,

Good that you mentioned his friends....Look at Job's friends! They automatically judged that he did something wrong that's why he was being punished by God! God had a few words about them in the end, too!


Book of Job
Epilogue
7 And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath. 8 Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job.


Rgacky3
and Job having a faith that goes beyond reward, it's also about the question "will man give everything on behalf of his flesh," the story is to show that in the end, no matter what, Justice wins, and God rewards to the faithful, even though for the most part unknowable injustice can happen, it's a kind of theodicy.

And justice may not necessarily be served on earth while we still live. We may die without seeing any justice on earth.....but it will surely be served on JUDGEment Day!


Using it to defend economic systems that favor the wealthy is totally unjustified.

Corrupting the Scriptures to serve one's purpose is a grievous sin. What more when it misleads others.



No you can't, but I don't think you can use the story as a way to justify seeking wealth or the such.

It's what's in your heart. If one dreams of acquiring wealth in order to fund an orphanage.....who's to judge that it's wrong? YOU?
The only thing I see from this thread is you trying your darndest to mould the Scriptures to suit your purpose. It's you who puts so much effort and energy thinking about the wealthy in WallStreet - and stewing about it! You think it's okay to judge the "institution" or the "system"....because by those names they are not people. They are. And it's you who wants wealth re-distributed so badly....that you'd go this length to sell the idea.

Who's REALLY obsessed with money?
 
Last edited:
Yep, the Hebrew Scriptures and their tribal views include the notion that God will enrich and make powerful those who believe in him and not Moloch.

They also believe that being poor and suffering is a punishment from God. That's what's been shown by Job's friends in The Book of Job - they insisted that Job must've sinned against God that's why he was suffering. God was not happy with how they interpreted Job's sufferings.

Book of Job
Epilogue
7 And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.


You keep saying Hebrew Scriptures when you refer to the Old Testament, like as if the OT should not matter. The New Testament is the continuation of the OT, and the OT is a big part of the New Testament whether you like it or not.

Jesus had quoted from the Old Testament when preaching.
 
You act as if these are two texts. James mentions Job as an example of steadfastness. Characters in the Old Testament can stand for a lot of symbolic virtues in the New Testament. It doesn't change the fact that the idea that God makes good people rich is totally and completely alien to the Christian sensibility and the teachings of Jesus.

I'm not saying that God makes good people rich. But I do say that, wealth can also be a blessing from God.
 
They also believe that being poor and suffering is a punishment from God. That's what's been shown by Job's friends in The Book of Job - they insisted that Job must've sinned against God that's why he was suffering. God was not happy with how they interpreted Job's sufferings.

Book of Job
Epilogue
7 And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.


You keep saying Hebrew Scriptures when you refer to the Old Testament, like as if the OT should not matter. The New Testament is the continuation of the OT, and the OT is a big part of the New Testament whether you like it or not.

Jesus had quoted from the Old Testament when preaching.

The OT doesn't matter for the reasons you just cited: it teaches things that are contrary to Jesus's teaching.

Most of Jesus' reference to the Hebrew Scriptures are critical. Hence the beatitudes, which take this form: "it teaches this, but I say . . ."; Moses taught divorce, but it was because of the hardness of your hearts".

But regardless -- of course Jesus would reference the Hebrew Scriptures. That's what his society understood. He also spoke Aramaic and talked about agriculture. But the message isn't speak Aramaic and farm.
 
Last edited:
It's telling that you ignore all the Jesus and James and Paul taught about the condemnation of the poor and focus on Job, as if that it the critical text.



Funny how you refuse to take The Book of Job literally when I said Job was a wealthy man before he was tested....even when it's so plainly and clearly explained! And yet you take the Beatitudes literally!


The Book Of Job
1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil. 2 And seven sons and three daughters were born to him. 3 Also, his possessions were seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred female donkeys, and a very large household, so that this man was the greatest of all the people of the East.

4 And his sons would go and feast in their houses, each on his appointed day, and would send and invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them.



Job's worldy possessions were described literally! He had a very large household - meaning he got lots of servants! He was probably one of the richest man in that region. So yes, literally, Job was a very wealthy man to begin with - and God doubled his wealth as a blessing.

And you continue to ignore Jesus' Parables of the Prodigal Son, and the Unmerciful Servant - which showed there's nothing wrong with being wealthy.
 
I'm not saying that God makes good people rich. But I do say that, wealth can also be a blessing from God.

Then you missed the point.

First, you can never prove that. Second if a good person becomes rich, he'd give his money away to help the poor. He wouldn't keep it. Jesus tells him not to. I fail to see why you ignore this obvious and undisputable fact.

I'd further mention that people usually don't become rich by accident. They become rich by being ruthless and exploitative. You seem to be valorizing the worldliness that the gospels condemns.
 
Last edited:
Funny how you refuse to take The Book of Job literally when I said Job was a wealthy man before he was tested....even when it's so plainly and clearly explained! And yet you take the Beatitudes literally!

It's not funny at all. I don't take any religious text literally. Anybody who does is fooling themselves and missing the point of a religious text. If I want a text book on economics or geology, I can find much better ones than Genesis or Job.

Job was written at a particular time for a particular audience with a particular view of God. That view is contrary to the gospel. So I have no use for it. But even if I did, I wouldn't take it literally. I'm absolutely convinced that God doesn't sit around chatting with Satan (because of course Satan himself isn't literal)
 
Last edited:
As for the Beatitudes, let's look at Matthew 5.

2 Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


Do you really think all poor people will automatically go to heaven just because they're poor? That all it takes to enter the kingdom of Heaven is to be poor?

The beatitudes meant those that are, POOR IN SPIRIT.
Here's an explanation for that:

People who are “poor in spirit” are those who are humble before God. They realize that they have nothing in this life that they can contribute to receiving the kingdom of heaven. They have afflicted their souls, meaning that they have humbled themselves and repented with deep contrition; and they have come to the king as helpless and hopeless sinners. There is no arrogance in them, no self-righteousness, no self-sufficiency. They are free from their own pretensions, and therefore they are free for God. Everyone who wishes to enter the kingdom must be “spiritually poor,” for salvation is a gift from God.

And that is the good news for the genuinely poor and oppressed in this world. The poor person is not excluded because of his poverty; and the rich person is not accepted because of his wealth. Both must humble themselves before the Lord in order to be part of the kingdom. It is often easier for the down and out of this world to do that, than for the rich to do it.

The blessing Jesus announces that “theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Now this of course does not mean that all poor people are in the kingdom. One thinks of the self-made poverty of the prodigal son. No, the poverty is not the chief thing, but the qualification of the spirit it. It is the poor in spirit, those who have humbled themselves and become dependent on God--they have the kingdom of heaven. In fact, everyone who is in the kingdom had to become poor in spirit. They all come with a broken heart and a contrite spirit seeking the Savior.
https://bible.org/seriespage/beatitudes-matthew-51-12

You should go read the whole article since it explains a whole lot more.
 
"It is the poor in spirit, those who have humbled themselves and become dependent on God--they have the kingdom of heaven."

Humble. Dependent. Those are the key words!
 
It's not funny at all. I don't take any religious text literally. Anybody who does is fooling themselves and missing the point of a religious text. If I want a text book on economics or geology, I can find much better ones than Genesis or Job.

Job was written at a particular time for a particular audience with a particular view of God. That view is contrary to the gospel. So I have no use for it. But even if I did, I wouldn't take it literally. I'm absolutely convinced that God doesn't sit around chatting with Satan (because of course Satan himself isn't literal)
:roll:

So since Satan isn't literal....I guess you also don't think Jesus got tempted by Satan in the dessert?
You're revising that out of the Bible, too?

So what do you make of His wandering in the dessert talking to Satan? Hallucinating from thirst? Half-crazed from hunger?


No wonder your reasonings about your assertions don't jive when you're faced with some key quotes.
You've edited parts out of it! :mrgreen:

Huh. No point discussing with you about the Bible then....wish you disclosed that beforehand.
 
Last edited:
As for the Beatitudes, let's look at Matthew 5.

2 Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


Do you really think all poor people will automatically go to heaven just because they're poor? That all it takes to enter the kingdom of Heaven is to be poor?

The beatitudes meant those that are, POOR IN SPIRIT.
Here's an explanation for that:


https://bible.org/seriespage/beatitudes-matthew-51-12

You should go read the whole article since it explains a whole lot more.

You do realize that the beatitudes appear twice. You've quoted Matthew. Luke says this;

Luke 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

No reference to the poor in spirit. Just the poor. So are you now saying you don't take Jesus literally, but you do take Job literally?

See how incoherent your position is? And maybe you shouldn't make smug statements to others about not reading the whole bible when clearly you don't even know about Luke's version of the beatitudes.
 
Last edited:
"It is the poor in spirit, those who have humbled themselves and become dependent on God--they have the kingdom of heaven."

Humble. Dependent. Those are the key words!

Pssst: read Luke. Different version. You're stuck not taking it literally I presume.
 
So since Satan isn't literal....I guess you also don't think Jesus got tempted by Satan in the dessert?
"Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the tiramisú to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry, so he ate it."

So what do you make of His wandering in the dessert talking to Satan? Hallucinating from thirst? Half-crazed from hunger?


No wonder your reasonings about your assertions don't jive when you're faced with some key quotes.
You've edited parts out of it! :mrgreen:

Huh. No point discussing with you about the Bible then....wish you disclosed that beforehand.

It strikes me that it's fairly pointless for anyone who doesn't share your biblical literalist stance to debate the bible with you. You certainly seem to know the text, as if you'd learnt it by rote at a madrassah. Your selective quoting of it, as HoJ has pointed out, makes you an unreliable authority however.
 
Who's "we?" You and Joaquin? Joaquin is judging all rich people and concluding that wealth is evil, that all rich people are damned.

Who makes systems and institutions? People! Thus, everything boils down to free will - unless we are forced to be part of a system/institution/ such as a socialist ideal (that takes away the individual's free will).

"We" meaning people that more or less agree with me.

1. Institutions are made up of people ... AND the laws that govern them, the foundations ... an institution is not a group of people, it's a group of people within a set of rules and norms and the such.

2. We ARE forced to be part of Capitalism since almost everything is privitized nowerdays ... Its a rediculous distinction, it's like saying "we should'nt oppose slavery if we ourselves are not forced to take part in that system.

3. Free will isn't the question here, all of us agree that free will is important ... That's simply a strawman.

Baloney! The ones who are in a rut are the ones who cannot afford the basic necessities of life - FOOD and SHELTER! That's all a human being needs!
Why do you think Jesus told us not to worry? And pointed to the birds as an example of how God will provide? Do all birds live in golden cages, with techno gadget feeders that comes with fountains?


It's all about LOVE OF MONEY! They're all the same!

What a sick twisting of scripture ... So Jesus tells us to not worry about material things but put spiritual things first ... and somehow you take that to mean that we shouldn't work for a system that takes care of "the least of these" i.e. Matthew 25:34-40?

Also in your response you totally ignored what I quoted .... in, for example, wallstreet capitalism, greed, love of money, is MANDETORY .... it's an institution of sin, read what I wrote before you respond.

It's not the institution that makes that demand. It is, straying away from God. They're lured by the treasures of this world.

So who are you judging when you say, "institution?" The building? :lol:

No, it literally is the institution, it's called maximizing profit .... It's the core of corporate Capitalism.

I'm judging the institution, i.e. the framework inwhich people are forced to work, the same thing you're judging and I would judge when talking about the USSR "system."

Why do you whine so much about their wealth? You're not simply whining.....you're smearing! You don't know what goes on in those board meetings - that there are those who try to correct the system and do the best they can for the good of the country. Why do we have whistleblowers, as an example?

You tar all people who sits in corporate boardrooms without knowing anything about them except that they're wearing suits and work in Wall Street! That's slander! Bearing false witness!

We have whistleblowers, and God bless them, what happens to them? They get fired ... blacklisted, or go to prison, what happened to the executive of a certain health insurance company when she suggested perhaps we shouldn't deny children healthcare based on phony pre-existing conditions? She was fired, why? They hurt profits .... This is SYSTEMIC sin, institutionalized.

Here's what I do know, they are obligated to MAXIMIZE profits.

BTW, under your logic it would be slander to criticize the Soviet Union system because yo udon't know what goes on in the politburo ....

It's rediculous .... But you're missing my ENTIRE point, my point is that Christians should apply the principles found in the bible to when they deal with social issues?

You are so desperate to try and get out of that you resort to this sort of nonsense argument.

Good that you mentioned his friends....Look at Job's friends! They automatically judged that he did something wrong that's why he was being punished by God! God had a few words about them in the end, too!

Ok ... I'm just quoting the scriptures here ....

And justice may not necessarily be served on earth while we still live. We may die without seeing any justice on earth.....but it will surely be served on JUDGEment Day!

That doesn't mean one shouldn't work toward justice now ...

Corrupting the Scriptures to serve one's purpose is a grievous sin. What more when it misleads others.

Which is not what I've been doing, but when you try and twist meanings of parables, or twist meanings of exortations not to worry, to pretend that things are in the scriptural text that arn't there and so on, I've posted scripture after scripture, plain and simple, not out of context, and not with any wierd exegesis ... You're the one that tries to add things to scriptures that arn't there. You're the one resisting the plain social message of the scriptures.

It's what's in your heart. If one dreams of acquiring wealth in order to fund an orphanage.....who's to judge that it's wrong? YOU?
The only thing I see from this thread is you trying your darndest to mould the Scriptures to suit your purpose. It's you who puts so much effort and energy thinking about the wealthy in WallStreet - and stewing about it! You think it's okay to judge the "institution" or the "system"....because by those names they are not people. They are. And it's you who wants wealth re-distributed so badly....that you'd go this length to sell the idea.

Who's REALLY obsessed with money?

1. I'm not judging individuals .... how many times have I said that.
2. I havn't moulded ANY scriptures, I've laid out the scriptures and let them speak for themselves.
3. I think about the wealthy in Wallstreet because its the system they benefit from and run that leaves millions upon millions in desperate poverty.

I'm not obsessed with money, I'm obsessed with following the scriptures, and following the example of Christ and the apostles.

And I suggest you start listening to the scriptures rather than trying desperately to reject it's social message due to the capitalistic culture you pay allegience to.
 
You do realize that the beatitudes appear twice. You've quoted Matthew. Luke says this;

Luke 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

No reference to the poor in spirit. Just the poor. So are you now saying you don't take Jesus literally, but you do take Job literally?

There are parts of the Bible that can really be taken literally as they are stated, and the description of Job's affluence - and that God doubled his wealth as a blessing - is one of them.

The beatitudes are literally stated however, the statement regarding the poor and the rich, are not stated in the way you want to interpret it. Both Matthew and Luke have given account of the Beatitudes! Matthew had given a more detailed account by his description of the poor that's being referred to by Jesus: poor in spirit.

We can interpret and revise the Bible any way we want - you've been doing that already by your own admission - but that doesn't mean we should.

We are warned against changing anything from the Scriptures.

Your interpretation means that being poor is enough reason to enter the Kingdom of God, and being rich means you are automatically damned - which we know is not true, because it's not consistent at all with what Jesus taught about salvation.

Your interpretation about the poor is not consistent with the examples given by Jesus.

If all wealthy people are damned, why would Jesus use wealthy people as the personification of God in His Parables? (Prodigal Son, Unmerciful Servant etc.,), some of His friends and disciples were wealthy (like Joseph of Arimathea), Lazarus and his sisters has a house where Jesus visited (and Mary was able to afford a very expensive perfume)!
You'd think that if rich people are automatically damned, Jesus would've convinced His friends and disciples to give away their possessions and become poor!

Here's an explanation:

Here begins a practical discourse of Christ, which is continued to the end of the chapter, most of which is found in the sermon upon the mount, Matthew 5:1-7:29. Some think that this was preached at some other time and place, and there are other instances of Christ's preaching the same things, or to the same purport, at different times but it is probable that this is only the evangelist's abridgment of that sermon, and perhaps that in Matthew too is but an abridgment the beginning and the conclusion are much the same and the story of the cure of the centurion's servant follows presently upon it, both there and here, but it is not material. In these verses, we have,

I. Blessings pronounced upon suffering saints, as happy people, though the world pities them (Luke 6:20): He lifted up his eyes upon his disciples, not only the twelve, but the whole company of them (Luke 6:17), and directed his discourse to them for, when he had healed the sick in the plain, he went up again to the mountain, to preach. There he sat, as one having authority thither they come to him (Matthew 5:1), and to them he directed his discourse, to them he applied it, and taught them to apply it to themselves. When he had laid it down for a truth, Blessed are the poor in spirit, he added, Blessed are ye poor. All believers, that take the precepts of the gospel to themselves, and live by them may take the promises of the gospel to themselves and live upon them. And the application, as it is here, seems especially designed to encourage the disciples, with reference to the hardships and difficulties they were likely to meet with, in following Christ.

1. "You are poor, you have left all to follow me, are content to live upon alms with me, are never to expect any worldly preferment in my service. You must work hard, and fare hard, as poor people do but you are blessed in your poverty, it shall be no prejudice at all to your happiness nay, you are blessed for it, all your losses shall be abundantly made up to you, for yours is the kingdom of God, all the comforts and graces of his kingdom here and all the glories and joys of his kingdom hereafter yours it shall be, nay, yours it is." Christ's poor are rich in faith, James 2:5.

We see John and Andrew as examples.
Andrew and John were fishermen by trade, sons of two wealthy men who had formed a partnership. Andrew and John left their wealth behind to follow Jesus. Thus they became poor. Does that mean John and Andrew's parents were damned for being wealthy? No. Otherwise they would've been adviced by their own sons to give up their wealth and become poor!

Thus indeed, there's a different meaning to the term, "poor" - and what it means to be "poor in spirit."


And here is the explanation for the rich.

II. Woes denounced against prospering sinners as miserable people, though the world envies them. These we had not in Matthew. It should seem, the best exposition of these woes, compared with the foregoing blessings, is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Lazarus had the blessedness of those that are poor, and hunger, and weep, now, for in Abraham's bosom all the promises made to them who did so were made good to him but the rich man had the woes that follow here, as he had the character of those on whom these woes are entailed.

1. Here is a woe to them that are rich, that is, that trust in riches, that have abundance of this world's wealth, and, instead of serving God with it, serve their lusts with it woe to them, for they have received their consolation, that which they placed their happiness in, and were willing to take up with for a portion, Luke 6:24. They in their life-time received their good things, which, in their account, were the best things, and all the good things they are ever likely to receive from God. "You that are rich are in temptation to set your hearts upon a smiling world, and to say, Soul, take thine ease in the embraces of it, This is my rest for ever, here will I dwell and then woe unto you." (1.) It is the folly of carnal worldlings that they make the things of this world their consolation, which were intended only for their convenience. They please themselves with them, pride themselves in them, and make them their heaven upon earth and to them the consolations of God are small, and of no account. (2.) It is their misery that they are put off with them as their consolation. Let them know it, to their terror, when they are parted from these things, there is an end of all their comfort, a final end of it, and nothing remains to them but everlasting misery and torment.
Luke 6:1 - Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible - Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Jesus is not against wealth! His teachings are about how we use wealth! Warning us not to have money become our master.

Furthermore, Luke 19 shows Jesus commending the wealthy (and formerly corrupt), Zachheus.

Luke 19
19 And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.
2 And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich.
3 And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature.
4 And he ran before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way.
5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house.
6 And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully.
7 And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner.
8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.
9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.


Clearly, you don't have to be poor to be saved. Note that he gave away only half his possession. The story of Zaccheus is consistent with the commentaries on Matthew's beatitudes about humble repentance.



See how incoherent your position is? And maybe you shouldn't make smug statements to others about not reading the whole bible when clearly you don't even know about Luke's version of the beatitudes.

There's no smugness on my part in showing that you are twisting the Scriptures to suit your purpose - and you supported that by admitting you do make your own revision to the extent that you don't believe Satan is real - which thereby means you imply Jesus was either lying or delusional about speaking of His encounter with someone called Satan in the desert.

If you think Jesus was either lying or delusional - why do you bother?

It is you who is incoherent.
 
Last edited:
tosca1
So since Satan isn't literal....I guess you also don't think Jesus got tempted by Satan in the dessert?
Andalublue
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the tiramisú to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry, so he ate it."

So you're reduced to checking out spelling now? Good eye! :mrgreen:
 
"We" meaning people that more or less agree with me.

1. Institutions are made up of people ... AND the laws that govern them, the foundations ... an institution is not a group of people, it's a group of people within a set of rules and norms and the such.

And who made up the sets of rules?

2. We ARE forced to be part of Capitalism since almost everything is privitized nowerdays ... Its a rediculous distinction, it's like saying "we should'nt oppose slavery if we ourselves are not forced to take part in that system.

3. Free will isn't the question here, all of us agree that free will is important ... That's simply a strawman.

Well no one is saying we shouldn't oppose slavery....or try to change the system!

What I'm saying is, you shouldn't twist the Scriptures to make it seem like Christians are required to overthrow anything to establish an ideology that forces everyone to put everything in a collective fund!

What more when that said ideology - liberal ideology - is actually non-Christian in principle! From eradicating God (to install a secular society) to pagan practices and sexual depravities of all sorts!

What you're promoting - if you are insinuating that we all embrace liberalism or socialism - is to throw away the most important of God's stipulations!
 
Well no one is saying we shouldn't oppose slavery....or try to change the system!

What I'm saying is, you shouldn't twist the Scriptures to make it seem like Christians are required to overthrow anything to establish an ideology that forces everyone to put everything in a collective fund!

What more when that said ideology - liberal ideology - is actually non-Christian in principle! From eradicating God (to install a secular society) to pagan practices and sexual depravities of all sorts!

1. Read what my point was, my point was similar to the liberation theologies "preferential option for the poor," it's essencially that when dealing with civic issues christians should follow the example in the scriptures, and focus on helping the poor, collective economics that help communities rather than the rich or propertied class, providing dignity for the oppressed and so on.

2. this isn't "liberal ideology," this is scriptural ideology ... just becasue some people in the US that are on the economic left are also on the cultural left says aboslutely NOTHING about waht teh scriptrues teach us when it comes to social issues.

3. The collective fund was an example by the first christians on how we should approach economic issues, of coarse we don't have to do exactly the same, christianity isn't a system of laws it's a system of principles.

I've gone over this OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.

But you're last paragraph says it all ... you're a consvative christian, thus you put yourself on the right, thus you put yourself with the economic right, thus you oppose everything on the left, i.e. it's cultural for you, but scripture goes beyond partisan politics or cultural dynamics, scripture comes first. A christian should ... for example oppose abortion AND oppose war ... even if those on the right oppose abortion and support war and those on the left support abortion and oppose war. What matters is scripture.
 
RGacky3
It's rediculous .... But you're missing my ENTIRE point, my point is that Christians should apply the principles found in the bible to when they deal with social issues?

And I suggest you start listening to the scriptures rather than trying desperately to reject it's social message due to the capitalistic culture you pay allegience to.

I've agreed with you that Christian principles must apply in all our decisions and actions, and yet obviously, that isn't enough for you.

So, explain clearly what you're suggesting we should do. Be specific. What's the plan?
 
I've agreed with you that Christian principles must apply in all our decisions and actions, and yet obviously, that isn't enough for you.

So, explain clearly what you're suggesting we should do. Be specific. What's the plan?

Here is the specific, when you're dealing with economic issues in civic society, you think first and formost ... How will this effect the poor? Will this benefit or hurt the poor? Will this help communities or will this only enrich the wealthy? Does this empower the poor or does it disempower them? Is this for the good of all in society or just the rich and powerful? And so on and so forth.

And be honest about it leaving your cultural political allegiances behind.

The Preferential Option for the poor is a good example of a catholic principle applying the scriptural message.
 
1. Read what my point was, my point was similar to the liberation theologies "preferential option for the poor," it's essencially that when dealing with civic issues christians should follow the example in the scriptures, and focus on helping the poor, collective economics that help communities rather than the rich or propertied class, providing dignity for the oppressed and so on.

2. this isn't "liberal ideology," this is scriptural ideology ... just becasue some people in the US that are on the economic left are also on the cultural left says aboslutely NOTHING about waht teh scriptrues teach us when it comes to social issues.

3. The collective fund was an example by the first christians on how we should approach economic issues, of coarse we don't have to do exactly the same, christianity isn't a system of laws it's a system of principles.

I've gone over this OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.

But you're last paragraph says it all ... you're a consvative christian, thus you put yourself on the right, thus you put yourself with the economic right, thus you oppose everything on the left, i.e. it's cultural for you, but scripture goes beyond partisan politics or cultural dynamics, scripture comes first. A christian should ... for example oppose abortion AND oppose war ... even if those on the right oppose abortion and support war and those on the left support abortion and oppose war. What matters is scripture.

How many ideologies are represented by politics? Of course you mean change things by putting in power the ideology that is based on Christian principles.

All of these ideologies have their own ways of helping the poor, btw.

Liberals - which promotes secularism (meaning, elimination of God and religion), human rights (which includes stripping the unborn of its humanity - just like the Nazi stripped the Jews of their humanity - so it can justify a woman's right to kill her defenseless child), busting down the institution of marriage and family as given by God, accepting sexual practices (and sexual unions) that are abominable in the eyes of God as normal.

Conservatives - Opposite of the stated issues above, upholding what is taught by Jesus.

Socialism - Out to lunch when it comes to economy! Not sustainable, and a failure.....as proven in history!

Communism - who wants this?

So, my question, which among these ideologies do you propose we should support?
 
Last edited:
Here is the specific, when you're dealing with economic issues in civic society, you think first and formost ... How will this effect the poor? Will this benefit or hurt the poor? Will this help communities or will this only enrich the wealthy? Does this empower the poor or does it disempower them? Is this for the good of all in society or just the rich and powerful? And so on and so forth.

And be honest about it leaving your cultural political allegiances behind.

The Preferential Option for the poor is a good example of a catholic principle applying the scriptural message.

I disagree!

Christian teachings is not centered on economic issues in civic society by measurement of wealth alone.

Establishing a Christian Godly society is the top priority! If a Christian society is God-fearing - the righteous decisions and deeds comes naturally!

If we're supposed to love our neighbors (which include defending the weak and defenseless), then our next priority would be to stop the slaughter of the children!

It's the height of hypocrisy to bleat on about helping the poor when we turn a blind eye on the most defenseless and weakest of humans that are being killed!
 
How many ideologies are represented by politics? Of course you mean change things by putting in power the ideology that is based on Christian principles.

All of these ideologies have their own ways of helping the poor, btw.

Liberals - which promotes secularism (meaning, elimination of God and religion), human rights (which includes stripping the unborn of its humanity - just like the Nazi stripped the Jews of their humanity - so it can justify a woman's right to kill her defenseless child), busting down the institution of marriage and family as given by God, accepting sexual practices (and sexual unions) that are abominable in the eyes of God as normal.

Conservatives - Opposite of the stated issues above, upholding what is taught by Jesus.

Socialism - Out to lunch when it comes to economy! Not sustainable, and a failure.....as proven in history!

Communism - who wants this?

So, my question, which among these ideologies do you propose we should support?

You're pidgion holing ideologies, just so that you can group everything together and thus ignore scriptural messages.

1. Liberal can mean many different things, as can conservative (liberal in europe refers to neo-liberal, i.e. what would be considered right wing in the US).
2. Socialism is a braod braod term that covers everything from Kibbutz to Social Democracies ....
3. Communism can refer to either the USSR type system or small c communism, which just means common ownership ala Acts 2 and 5.

What you're saying here is NONSENSE, and nothing more than a pathetic excuse to fit yourself in comfortably within the cultural ideology of the conservative right in the United States, just as Gnostics in parts of the Roman Empire tried to twist things to fit christianity within their philosophical culture .... It's a sad attempt to try and throw away a HUGE part of the scriptures, and biblical principles just so you can be a "good right winger."

You're putting you're political culture above scriptrue.
 
Back
Top Bottom