When I read about Soros’ work, it is makes me feel disappointed in myself because I could not imitate him.
I feel sorry for you, Ribo. You should be able to be comfortable in giving to charity what you can afford to give, (perhaps including a little bit of sacrifice) and not feel inadequate because you cannot give what an extremely wealthy person can or chooses to give.It is ok to be wealthy as long as you use your wealth to reduce suffering. I do not loathe George Soros for being wealthy, but he makes me abhor myself because I will never have the means to conduct charity on the scale that he could.
10% tithe is the traditional amount from the old testament days. but catholics are not obligated to tithe 10%, but to give i suppose what they can, which falls way short in practice. i believe the average is around 1 or 2%. catholic school tuition counts towards your tithe.but in terms of obedience to the [Roman Catholic] Church, isn’t all that is required money-wise is the 10% tithe? Please correct me if I am wrong. Obviously, I know some take vows of voluntary poverty (often as part of becoming a religious…we have similar orders in Anglicanism).
I want to promote the ideas of John Rawls and John Stuart Mill with my resources. I simply want their ideas to be heard and their philosophies to permeate other cultures. This seems to be such an ambitious task and it does not seem that I have the resources to do it.If you have that kind of money, you have a big responsibility to give most of it to the poor somehow. Otherwise, I’d say your time and education are the most important things you can donate, along with whatever else you feel led to give. God bless your desire to be true to Christ with your money.
So, rich people stop giving because of the government? Well, in the United States poverty unfortunately exists and lets not forget the damage a future energy crisis will bring on the most vulnerable in the world.Couple of ideas:
I read in a book recently that before modern times, the rich looked upon poor people as occasions to offer personal charity, as an opportunity to actually BE Christian. Nowadays, we have the agents and agencies of the welfare state. What’s lost is perhaps the opportunity for rich people to directly help out.
Soros has something that he firmly believes in - he believes in an open society that supports individual rights and is conducive to democracy. His background provides a basis for these ideas as he lived through the Holocaust and he was instructed by Karl Popper. Unfortunately, not many wealthy people believe in an ideal as firmly as George Soros.The main difference between me and other people who have amassed this kind of money is that I am primarily interested in ideas, and I don’t have much personal use for money. But I hate to think what would have happened if I hadn’t made money: My ideas would not have gotten much play.
just goes to show different people’s perspectives. i would say, depending on where in the U.S. you live, $30-$85,000 per year is all a married couple with no kids would need. the $30K would be in areas with lower housing and cost of living (i.e. rural areas or smaller towns). a married couple could live on $85K a year in NYC or any other high expense city.i think 1 million a year is the maximum wealth anyone could justify. any more income should be given up for some charitable cause.
.
So, are you saying it is a sin to live comfortably (assuming the money was earned in an unsinful manner)?just goes to show different people’s perspectives. i would say, depending on where in the U.S. you live, $30-$85,000 per year is all a married couple with no kids would need. the $30K would be in areas with lower housing and cost of living (i.e. rural areas or smaller towns). a married couple could live on $85K a year in NYC or any other high expense city.
we need to remember that comfort can be an enemy to growth. there is a difference between being “comforted” and being “comfortable”. the former is a good thing, the latter is bad.
$1million/year… lol. i would love a breakdown of that justification.
I do not know what do you mean by comfortably? Money should be used to releive human suffering and not focusing on selfish hedonistic impulses. But most wealthy people do not believe in anything except avarice. The few exceptions are worthy of my respect.So, are you saying it is a sin to live comfortably (assuming the money was earned in an unsinful manner)?
if there is anyone who has a need and you have extra and you do not share that extra with some one in need, you are sinning. so yes, it is a sin to live comfortably when so many do not have their basic needs met. that is what i am saying.So, are you saying it is a sin to live comfortably (assuming the money was earned in an unsinful manner)?
i would disagree. i would say there is NOTHING wrong with earning a lot of money. there is something wrong with being wealthy (holding on to more than you need) when so many go without basic necessities.But as I stated before there is nothing wrong with being wealthy;
But what is wrong with enjoying God’s blessing, including financial ones?i would disagree. i would say there is NOTHING wrong with earning a lot of money. there is something wrong with being wealthy (holding on to more than you need) when so many go without basic necessities.
Because the “loving” God did not provide other people with those blessings and many people suffer becuase they lack economic resources.But what is wrong with enjoying God’s blessing, including financial ones?
wouldn’t it be more enjoyment to share those “blessings” (if that’s what they really are… didn’t Jesus say blessed are the poor?) with those who are in need rather than selfishly pleasing ourselves?But what is wrong with enjoying God’s blessing, including financial ones?
It’s interesting, looking at your profile and by the ‘tone’ of your words, what are your religious beliefs? You seem enamored of George Soros but are you religious? I merely ask because if someone is not religious, then how can they accuse someone of sin?Because the “loving” God did not provide other people with those blessings and many people suffer becuase they lack economic resources.
My own ethical believes are basically an eccletic mix of utilitarianism and Rawlsian contractualism. (I am trying to get a copy of A Theory of Justice by Rawls).It’s interesting, looking at your profile and by the ‘tone’ of your words, what are your religious beliefs? You seem enamored of George Soros but are you religious? I merely ask because if someone is not religious, then how can they accuse someone of sin?
it’s good. go get you one!I am trying to get a copy of A Theory of Justice by Rawls.
sorry to hear that. but i do believe you couldn’t have the compassion you seem to have if it were not given to you.I do not believe in a divine entity.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t give, don’t get me wrong. What I am asking is why can I not enjoy some of my financial blessings? If it were a sin, then why would St.Peter have told Ananias that his sin was not that he didn’t give everything away, but that he made a vow and lied about it.wouldn’t it be more enjoyment to share those “blessings” (if that’s what they really are… didn’t Jesus say blessed are the poor?) with those who are in need rather than selfishly pleasing ourselves?
what is “wrong” is that God give us gifts to go and “invest” them. the parable of the talents is a great example.
the first two servants invest the money (presumably into the economy which stimulates jobs and allows more people to make money) and come back with a nice return to give to the master (God, let’s not mistake Him for a human master). the third one buries the talent given to him so that there is no risk in losing it. he is expelled from the master’s presence.
there is nothing wrong with enjoyment, even in the midst of tragedy. there is sin in assuming God’s gifts to us were meant for only us to enjoy. what if all of the apostles thought that Jesus’ teachings were only for them and they never told anyone else? they would have enjoyed God’s “blessing” on them, but we would all be screwed.
Go ahead, but you do have to ask yourself why God didn’t provide everyone those blessings and allow people to suffer because they lack money to get certain material resources. I rejected belief in God because of the problem of evil argument in my childhood.I’m not saying we shouldn’t give, don’t get me wrong. What I am asking is why can I not enjoy some of my financial blessings? If it were a sin, then why would St.Peter have told Ananias that his sin was not that he didn’t give everything away, but that he made a vow and lied about it.
but lots have people have made lots of vows and broken them. they were not struck down by God. this vow was different in that it involved giving to help each other. that is why they are struck down. it is the nature of the vow being broken.I’m not saying we shouldn’t give, don’t get me wrong. What I am asking is why can I not enjoy some of my financial blessings? If it were a sin, then why would St.Peter have told Ananias that his sin was not that he didn’t give everything away, but that he made a vow and lied about it…
i would say that paul is giving the standard by which Christians are to give. they are to give freely out of love, not grudgingly. if you give out of love, you will give more and give SACRIFICIALLY. this means giving until it hurts… giving until you have to trust God because you gave so much away. paul also says in romans that anything that is not done in faith is sin. if we give but do not need faith to do it (i.e. we keep enough so that we KNOW we will not be in need of the things we want), then even our giving is sin because it is out of the idea that: it is a nice thing to do or i am supposed to do it but i’m going to do the bare minimum.And how would you interpret 2 Corinthians 9:7, which says don’t give grudgingly or of necessity? If you take your interpretation that it is a sin, then you end up with people grudgingly (they aren’t happy, but they don’t want to sin) and “of necessity” (the NIV translates as “under compulsion”).
The verses actually don’t answer why both Ananias and Sapphira killed for their sin, except, as St. Peter said, [They lied to the Holy Spirit]. So far, you have yet to show how if, they had NOT made their disengenuous vow, they would have sinned by either:but lots have people have made lots of vows and broken them. they were not struck down by God. this vow was different in that it involved giving to help each other. that is why they are struck down. it is the nature of the vow being broken.
I believe the verse you are referring to is Romans 14:23:i would say that paul is giving the standard by which Christians are to give. they are to give freely out of love, not grudgingly. if you give out of love, you will give more and give SACRIFICIALLY. this means giving until it hurts… giving until you have to trust God because you gave so much away. paul also says in romans that anything that is not done in faith is sin. if we give but do not need faith to do it (i.e. we keep enough so that we KNOW we will not be in need of the things we want), then even our giving is sin because it is out of the idea that: it is a nice thing to do or i am supposed to do it but i’m going to do the bare minimum.
If you look at the surrounding verses, you’ll see St. Paul is discussing personal conscience and judgment, as well as the issues of being around a ‘weaker’ Christian. St. Paul uses the example of wines and meats, but I’ll give a modern example.But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
bengal_fan said:i am not saying that we give up everything to the point that we don’t have the basic necessities of life. even Jesus was provided for in that regard (by wealthy people willing to give up their stuff to take care of Jesus and His followers… probably cost lazarus a pretty penny every time Jesus rolled into town with His 12 buddies!).