Yorick, this question is for you

[250]

how do you see the subject of money?
I know it is not considered devil for Christians to play games, so what about money?

I personally think, money is part of everyone's living liability. like, we expand water, meat, vegetables, air; money is just as neccissery to sustain our lives. of course, one could live without money, but it is a very ridiculus thing to say today, especially when money is connected to many morden facilities. one cannot produce everything he needs, so it is not exaggreating to say "one cannot live without money in this soceity."

so how do you see people who accumulate wealth?
is there a clear line between those who only use what they need and those who accumulate?
is one better than the other?
is it evil that someone wants to become wealthy?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by 250: how do you see the subject of money? I know it is not considered devil for Christians to play games, so what about money? I personally think, money is part of everyone's living liability. like, we expand water, meat, vegetables, air; money is just as neccissery to sustain our lives. of course, one could live without money, but it is a very ridiculus thing to say today, especially when money is connected to many morden facilities. one cannot produce everything he needs, so it is not exaggreating to say "one cannot live without money in this soceity." so how do you see people who accumulate wealth? is there a clear line between those who only use what they need and those who accumulate? is one better than the other? is it evil that someone wants to become wealthy?

There are Christians with almost opposite views on the subject Leo. On one hand, we have the Bible saying you cannot have two masters. It's either God or money. It also says it's harder for a rich man to enter heaven than a camel through the eye of a needle. Jesus told the rich young man that came up to him to give away all he had and follow him. "The love of money is the root of all evil". "Don't store up for yourself things of the earth that moth and rust destroy" the bible says, "but store up riches in heaven". (I'm paraphrasing)

Then in the other corner are those who quote the bible when it says things like the riches of the corrupt? (something like that) are laid up for the righteous, that God wants us to prosper ,and that by faith - by calling things into being through faith in Jesus - we can be prosperous. They preach that money also brings power to effect change.

Both sides decry the other. The Prosperitous are kicking against percieved "pauper mentality", and the Moneyforsakers see the Prosperitors as having in some cases false teaching.

Christians fighting Christians is possibly the worst turnoff for people, both inside and outside the faith. Conflict. Is it an inevitable part of existance?

Anyhow, I think there is a balance. Merit in both depending on the circumstance. Of utmost importance though, is the necessity for the Christian to have Christ as his focus, and not the gathering of material wealth - even if that comes to pass, and gaining financial success is a personal goal.

I think that a "rich Christian" is not a contradiction, but, one who follows Christ shouldn't be measuring success and self worth on the size of his/her bank account. The key is "the love of money is the root of all evil", not money itself.

Conversley there is a danger in presuming a poor Christian to be of weaker faith, or somehow deserving of his/her fate. The danger is loss of compassion, judgementalism and hubris.

Truly some are cash rich/time poor, and others time rich/cash poor. Can one be both? Can one be neither?

All in all, the Church is described as the body of Christ. The body has different sections that perform different roles. Hence the saying that the "eye" shouldn't criticise the "hand". Rich Christians shouldn't criticise poor and vice versa.

Like so much in Christianity much is open to individual interpretation. It is an individual relationship between a human and God after all. The young rich man obviously placed money above God, which was why he had to "give it up" or at least be prepared to. A poor Christian should in some ways be happy because there is potentially less between him and God. When you've got nothing you've got nothing to lose.

You can't live on nothing though

Have I gone round in circles?

Balance is the key Leo. That is what I believe anyway.


------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 09-08-2001).]

[MILAMBER]

Yorick, if I knew more Christians like you I probably wouldn't have been as turned off as I was. One of my X's was a strong Christian and I had a very bad experience with the religion. It's kind of a long story, but what I'm trying to say is that there is no way that she could have answered a question so honestly and presented both sides like that. She would have had an opinion one way or the other and told me that the "gospel" is either one side or the other and not even mentioned that there might be more then one opinion on the matter. I know better then to judge a religion by any one of it's members, but I honestly haven't had a chance to really talk to any Christians yet who might have different opinions. I hope I do in the future.

------------------
"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."
-General George Patton (1885-1945)

Member of CLAN HADB

[250]

ok, Yorick, so you are saying there is something seriously wrong about accumulating wealth

what if one desires money, while he still has the compassion, caring and loving qualities that a "good" person has? this person is just good at making money, so is he a moral man? or is this the balance that you are talking about?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by 250: ok, Yorick, so you are saying there is something seriously wrong about accumulating wealth what if one desires money, while he still has the compassion, caring and loving qualities that a "good" person has? this person is just good at making money, so is he a moral man? or is this the balance that you are talking about?

I never personaly said there was something wrong about accumulating wealth. Only if the person has wealth accumulation as a god. All consuming. The focus of his/her life to the exclusion of his/her God and family.

I did present parts of the different Christian opinions though. It is up to you to decide which side of the line you walk, or whether you attempt to straddle them both.


Milamber, thanks mate! Thankyou bro.


------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[250]

Originally posted by Yorick: I never personaly said there was something wrong about accumulating wealth. Only if the person has wealth accumulation as a god. All consuming. The focus of his/her life to the exclusion of his/her God and family. I did present parts of the different Christian opinions though. It is up to you to decide which side of the line you walk, or whether you attempt to straddle them both. Milamber, thanks mate! Thankyou bro.

the man who chooses both, will get nothing. (because that is the most greedy one)
If I don't want to miss anything, I might end up getting nothing
I've long decided that a life without love, accompanyship, friendship is like a fruitless tree, which cannot produce happiness. it will eventually dry and die by itself
hey, I am not worry about money, because I know I can make enough!

[Moiraine]

Originally, money is supposed to represent a quantity of work - weighed by the value that is attributed to one's kind of work. I would ask several questions there :

There is always a price to pay for trying to get wealthy - in personal time, in ethics, ... You can get wealthy by achieving a mastery in a area where what you do is very rare, or by developping something that improves human life, but you also can achieve wealth by consciously walking on other people's heads. The ways to get rich are not all morally defendable ...

If money is supposed to measure people's work, is it OK to make money only by buying company actions ? I mean, is it moral that the shareholders of a company get money from other people's work ?

And is it OK that one may be rich by inheriting money from his/her ancestors, not having done any actual work to get it ?

------------------


The world is my oyster !

[250]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Originally, money is supposed to represent a quantity of work - weighed by the value that is attributed to one's kind of work. I would ask several questions there : There is always a price to pay for trying to get wealthy - in personal time, in ethics, ... You can get wealthy by achieving a mastery in a area where what you do is very rare, or by developping something that improves human life, but you also can achieve wealth by consciously walking on other people's heads. The ways to get rich are not all morally defendable ... If money is supposed to measure people's work, is it OK to make money only by buying company actions ? I mean, is it moral that the shareholders of a company get money from other people's work ? And is it OK that one may be rich by inheriting money from his/her ancestors, not having done any actual work to get it ?

this is how I look. (Moridin, if I make mistake, do point out and correct me)
we are all employees while we can all be employers at the same time.

when we work, we are not just working for an employer. we are working for our own needs. say, if you need a car, be it you HAVE to have it, or you just want one for luxury, then you are working for a piece of paper called paycheck that you will receive every end of the month. that means you are conciously or unconciously working for money. so this time, money is your employer. money can push you around because you want something out of it.

and incase of a shareholder/investor, money is working for him. every piece of penny is consistently generating itself 24/7. is that immoral? well, someone is good at making money means he exersizes his brain at that catgory more than others. it is same as a rocket scientist knows more about nuclear than a lawyer. having money working for one just makes him the rocket scientist of financing area, hardly immoral.

the good thing is, we all can be employees while being employers at the same time, so why not do it? accumulate wealth is not wrong, "the love for money is the root of all evil" how well said! but it is only true if that "love" execeeds certain limit. is atomicbomb evil? it is not by itself. it is how we as human manipulate its power makes the difference. after a long day thinking, I think I begin to understand the Balance that Yorick mentioned. indeed, one needs balance

[Moridin]

Originally posted by 250: this is how I look. (Moridin, if I make mistake, do point out and correct me) we are all employees while we can all be employers at the same time. when we work, we are not just working for an employer. we are working for our own needs. say, if you need a car, be it you HAVE to have it, or you just want one for luxury, then you are working for a piece of paper called paycheck that you will receive every end of the month. that means you are conciously or unconciously working for money. so this time, money is your employer. money can push you around because you want something out of it. and incase of a shareholder/investor, money is working for him. every piece of penny is consistently generating itself 24/7. is that immoral? well, someone is good at making money means he exersizes his brain at that catgory more than others. it is same as a rocket scientist knows more about nuclear than a lawyer. having money working for one just makes him the rocket scientist of financing area, hardly immoral. the good thing is, we all can be employees while being employers at the same time, so why not do it? accumulate wealth is not wrong, "the love for money is the root of all evil" how well said! but it is only true if that "love" execeeds certain limit. is atomicbomb evil? it is not by itself. it is how we as human manipulate its power makes the difference. after a long day thinking, I think I begin to understand the Balance that Yorick mentioned. indeed, one needs balance

Very well said 250

Balance is the key. I think the love of money can be summed up in the simple word greed!

We can be both an employee and employer of money and we need both. If always an employee we will never truly be free and if only an employer I think we can get lax(sp) in our ethics. The two together keep us grounded but allow us freedom.



------------------


Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time
Bossman of Better Funny Stuff.....of the Laughing Hyenas!