• 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.

What if the rich followed Jesus's advice?

W

whateverdude

Banned
Joined
May 4, 2017
Messages
356
Reaction score
45
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We'll there'd be no rich. We'd all share our incomes equally. As a result, nothing extraordinary would be possible.

You'd never have the automobile. Because there'd be no one with enough money to invent one. Rather we'd be focused on making sure everyone has a camel to ride. It'd be stagnant equality where no individual would have the financial capabilities to advance society.
Then again, without the possibility of being rich, nobody would ever have the incentive to make the world a better place.

(you know it and I know it. Nobody would ever invent anything if we couldn't get rich. Nobody would work harder since the only incentive for work is to produce inequality)

Sounds like a boring world where technology stays static over the span of 1000s of years. The poor would be better off in the short run, but as a whole, without capitalism and the incentive to gain wealth, the standard of living would be the same now as it was in Jesus's time.
Which would mean the poor would never really advance either. They'd be slightly better off than they were during the time Jesus was alive, and they'd be living that standard of living for the next couple thousand years.

Which would mean we'd still have leprosy, as nobody would have any incentive to cure it unless they themselves have leprosy.
 
Somebody has not heard of Carnegie, the Rockefellers, or Ford.
 
whateverdude said:
We'll there'd be no rich. We'd all share our incomes equally. As a result, nothing extraordinary would be possible.

You'd never have the automobile. Because there'd be no one with enough money to invent one. Rather we'd be focused on making sure everyone has a camel to ride. It'd be stagnant equality where no individual would have the financial capabilities to advance society.
Then again, without the possibility of being rich, nobody would ever have the incentive to make the world a better place.

(you know it and I know it. Nobody would ever invent anything if we couldn't get rich. Nobody would work harder since the only incentive for work is to produce inequality)

Sounds like a boring world where technology stays static over the span of 1000s of years. The poor would be better off in the short run, but as a whole, without capitalism and the incentive to gain wealth, the standard of living would be the same now as it was in Jesus's time.
Which would mean the poor would never really advance either. They'd be slightly better off than they were during the time Jesus was alive, and they'd be living that standard of living for the next couple thousand years.

Which would mean we'd still have leprosy, as nobody would have any incentive to cure it unless they themselves have leprosy.
Click to expand...

or you would get lots of people to invest some of their money into projects that could improve life either privately or by government taxes

but hey im with you being forced to be the same as every 1 else would suck

so maybe instead the rich could provide enough of ther money for food shelter medical care education and public transportation for every one instead

you could still keep some extra and the lot of every one should keep improving that way
 
What if the rich followed Jesus's advice?
Click to expand...
Then the rich might go to heaven.
And again I say unto you, 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.

Matthew 19:24
Click to expand...
 
Fiddytree said:
Somebody has not heard of Carnegie, the Rockefellers, or Ford.
Click to expand...

That threesome arrived to the party after it had been going on a while.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Luke 17:21

"nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is in your midst."

Or you could just read some Meister Eckhardt.
Click to expand...
Luke will do. So heaven is within us. The question was to what, not where, I believe.;)
 
Angel said:
Luke will do. So heaven is within us. The question was to what, not where, I believe.;)
Click to expand...

No, it's not that heaven is within us, it's that it isn't the Kingdom of God. Heaven and the Kingdom of God are separate things. Heaven refers to a place; the Kingdom of God refers to a dominion. The confusion comes from the fact that "Kingdom of Heaven" is also used to describe God's dominion and modern readers mistakenly read it to mean "Kingdom in heaven" when that's not the meaning at all. Heaven is where the throne currently resides, but God's dominion is over all of creation. The Kingdom of Heaven is currently in our midst and is composed of all those who have accepted God's rule in their lives. That is the sense in which the Kingdom of God is here. But the Kingdom of God isn't just here but is also "to come", for we await the day when God will return to rule over the Earth in all his glory.

This quick answer in an otherwise unreliable website is actually quite good:
https://www.gotquestions.org/kingdom-of-God.html
the kingdom of God is a spiritual rule over the hearts and lives of those who willingly submit to God’s authority. Those who defy God’s authority and refuse to submit to Him are not part of the kingdom of God; in contrast, those who acknowledge the lordship of Christ and gladly surrender to God’s rule in their hearts are part of the kingdom of God.

Here is a more robust explanation if this subject really interest you:
Imagining the Kingdom: Mission and Theology in Early Christianity
 
Last edited:
whateverdude said:
We'll there'd be no rich. We'd all share our incomes equally. As a result, nothing extraordinary would be possible.

You'd never have the automobile. Because there'd be no one with enough money to invent one. Rather we'd be focused on making sure everyone has a camel to ride. It'd be stagnant equality where no individual would have the financial capabilities to advance society.
Then again, without the possibility of being rich, nobody would ever have the incentive to make the world a better place.

(you know it and I know it. Nobody would ever invent anything if we couldn't get rich. Nobody would work harder since the only incentive for work is to produce inequality)

Sounds like a boring world where technology stays static over the span of 1000s of years. The poor would be better off in the short run, but as a whole, without capitalism and the incentive to gain wealth, the standard of living would be the same now as it was in Jesus's time.
Which would mean the poor would never really advance either. They'd be slightly better off than they were during the time Jesus was alive, and they'd be living that standard of living for the next couple thousand years.

Which would mean we'd still have leprosy, as nobody would have any incentive to cure it unless they themselves have leprosy.
Click to expand...


Clearly you have no biblical knowledge and less about the economy.
 
It seems pretty obvious Jesus did not anticipate technological advancements, let alone contemporary economic concepts about incentives and motivations.

That oversight has nothing to do with his attitude towards wealth, unless he associated wealth with the Roman occupiers and/or their local collaborators. It's a result of living at a time of little technological innovation, little wide-spread interest in science, and when imaginations were applied to religious concepts rather than sci-fi flights of fancy.
 
whateverdude said:
We'll there'd be no rich. We'd all share our incomes equally. As a result, nothing extraordinary would be possible.

You'd never have the automobile. Because there'd be no one with enough money to invent one. Rather we'd be focused on making sure everyone has a camel to ride. It'd be stagnant equality where no individual would have the financial capabilities to advance society.
Then again, without the possibility of being rich, nobody would ever have the incentive to make the world a better place.

(you know it and I know it. Nobody would ever invent anything if we couldn't get rich. Nobody would work harder since the only incentive for work is to produce inequality)

Sounds like a boring world where technology stays static over the span of 1000s of years. The poor would be better off in the short run, but as a whole, without capitalism and the incentive to gain wealth, the standard of living would be the same now as it was in Jesus's time.
Which would mean the poor would never really advance either. They'd be slightly better off than they were during the time Jesus was alive, and they'd be living that standard of living for the next couple thousand years.

Which would mean we'd still have leprosy, as nobody would have any incentive to cure it unless they themselves have leprosy.
Click to expand...

1. Jesus never told the rich man he had to give up all his wealth to enter heaven--he told him to just follow the commandments, if I recall correctly. Then he told him if wanted to be *perfect* to give up all he has and come follow him.

2. Jesus has a parable about one servant burying his money while the other two invest theirs. The "money" was symbolic of other things: possibly talents, skills etc. But the whole thing sounded in line with modern views of investing your money to make your money earn more money for you.

3. I don't believe in prosperity gospel. But I don't think Jesus asked everyone to be a monk and beggar either. The Church (gathering community) is big enough for many different roles from married women that are mothers to nuns, from monks to Popes, from cosmologists to fast food workers, from theologians to those more concerned in pastoral work or psychology. Everyone does not have to be the same.
 
Jesus did not condemn being rich if one uses their riches wisely and understand their place...he did condemn the LOVE of money...putting riches above all other things...
 
Elvira said:
Jesus did not condemn being rich if one uses their riches wisely and understand their place...he did condemn the LOVE of money...putting riches above all other things...
Click to expand...

Agreed. The rich young ruler trusted in his wealth, not God. I know a few wealthy people that use their wealth the way God intended, and they are very happy. I also have known a few wealthy people that are miserable treacherous people. It's all about the motivation of the heart.
 
Fiddytree said:
Somebody has not heard of Carnegie, the Rockefellers, or Ford.
Click to expand...

they became benefactors AFTER earning their wealth

Carnegie Hall wasnt built from a poor man's wages

Rockefeller Center wasnt built from a poor man's wages

Rich people often become very benevolent with their money later in life....as they want to give back to those to help make it possible

Hopefully we all do that in our own little way....
 
gdgyva said:
they became benefactors AFTER earning their wealth

Carnegie Hall wasnt built from a poor man's wages

Rockefeller Center wasnt built from a poor man's wages

Rich people often become very benevolent with their money later in life....as they want to give back to those to help make it possible

Hopefully we all do that in our own little way....
Click to expand...

It's ironic you should chose those pieces of philanthropy. The prices of admission to those distinguished centers of the arts is above the means of many of the people who those families abused to make their fortunes.
 
RAMOSS said:
It's ironic you should chose those pieces of philanthropy. The prices of admission to those distinguished centers of the arts is above the means of many of the people who those families abused to make their fortunes.
Click to expand...

yeah, for most of the shows I would agree

But occasionally they open their doors for free events, or especially low priced events....similar to what the Kennedy Center does in DC

The days of free concerts in venues like that aren't quite gone, but close to it

Rich people like leaving legacies....libraries, hospitals, concert halls, etc

It allows them to live on in perputuity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom