Is it possible to become filthy rich without losing your soul?

[vern_humphrey]

You brought it up. So why are the sins of the poor of relevant to a thread about the wealthy and the pursuit of money?

No, I didn’t bring up what you brought up. I pointed out that the data we have – such as the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report – indicates crime is concentrated in the lower socio-economic classes.

You then offered excuses for that – which is irrelevant. Crime is where it is, and all the excuses in the world don’t make the guilty innocent or the innocent guilty.

 

[rtconstant]

Not for the reason you seem to imply. The “rich” in Jesus’ time were Quislings, allies of Rome. Yet He even reached out to them – choosing Matthew, a tax collector as an Apostle.

What reason am I espousing? Some here have suggested that there is ultimately no difference between the rich and the poor you yourself have tried to argue that the poor are more likely to sin. All I’m saying is that Jesus seemed to have particular concern about the rich and their salvation yet you seem to be discounting it in favor or modern economic scenarios.

If the rich are in no more danger than anyone else and if they are as you seem to be suggesting even less inclined to evil. Then why was Jesus take time to speak to their condition?

 

[rtconstant]

No, I didn’t bring up what you brought up. I pointed out that the data we have – such as the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report – indicates crime is concentrated in the lower socio-economic classes.

You then offered excuses for that – which is irrelevant. Crime is where it is, and all the excuses in the world don’t make the guilty innocent or the innocent guilty.

No you keep bringing up the poor and their perceived wrongs. Which is not relevant to the thread and is nothing more than a distraction. If you don’t like dealing with the points you bring up then don’t bring them up.

What I shared with you aren’t excuses they’re reality. Your lack of knowledge of these situations is apparent and if you don’t know you don’t know. That’s fine, be glad you haven’t had to deal with these issues. But don’t pretend everyone plays on an even playing field.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What reason am I espousing? Some here have suggested that there is ultimately no difference between the rich and the poor you yourself have tried to argue that the poor are more likely to sin. All I’m saying is that Jesus seemed to have particular concern about the rich and their salvation yet you seem to be discounting it in favor or modern economic scenarios.

If the rich are in no more danger than anyone else and if they are as you seem to be suggesting even less inclined to evil. Then why was Jesus take time to speak to their condition?

Jesus, who lived under an entirely different economic and social system, spoke to all conditions of mankind – including the hyper-good Pharasees, tax collectors, rich and poor.

There is no question that those who are economically successful owe charity to those who are not successful – but there is no reason to damn and blackguard them because they have more than we do.

And when we consider “the rich” we have to understand that they do yoeman service to the rest of us – they create the jobs the rest of us need for survival. That in itself is a magnificent accomplishment, for which no one gives them credit.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No you keep bringing up the poor and their perceived wrongs. Which is not relevant to the thread and is nothing more than a distraction. If you don’t like dealing with the points you bring up then don’t bring them up.

No, I use actual data to show that “the filthy rich” are under-represented in the FBI Uniform Crime Report.

Other people on this thread, on the other hand, damn and condemn “the rich” based on nothing more than bias and wishful thinking.

What I shared with you aren’t excuses they’re reality. Your lack of knowledge of these situations is apparent and if you don’t know you don’t know. That’s fine, be glad you haven’t had to deal with these issues. But don’t pretend everyone plays on an even playing field.

No, they’re excuses. You make the typical amateur error of mistaking correlation for causality.

And I have had to deal with those issues – you aren’t the only person who knows poverty first-hand, you know.

 

[rtconstant]

Jesus, who lived under an entirely different economic and social system, spoke to all conditions of mankind – including the hyper-good Pharasees, tax collectors, rich and poor.

There is no question that those who are economically successful owe charity to those who are not successful – but there is no reason to damn and blackguard them because they have more than we do.

They’re not being damned because they’re rich. People can be born into money or win money that doesn’t damn them. What people do with it and how they view it can. There are very real dangers when one has power. The story surrounding the verse I was asking about I think illustrates this very well. The Rich Young Man was not a cruel or evil person yet his money was much to important to him and may have cost him everything. Humans typically don’t handle power well.

And when we consider “the rich” we have to understand that they do yoeman service to the rest of us – they create the jobs the rest of us need for survival. That in itself is a magnificent accomplishment, for which no one gives them credit.

Well really that is a mutual service. We make them money they share a portion of it. The guy who signs my checks can’t do what I do. He needs my skill set and I have accepted his offer of financial compensation for it. Jobs are a biproduct in the quest for more money. Don’t get me wrong in the west most benefit from this in jobs and a large variety of industries. Whether or not this becomes a character issue depends on how the employer treats his employees.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No you keep bringing up the poor and their perceived wrongs. Which is not relevant to the thread and is nothing more than a distraction. If you don’t like dealing with the points you bring up then don’t bring them up.

Perceived? The FBI Uniform Crime Statistics are perceived wrongs? When people are killed, beaten or raped, they aren’t actually hurt? It’s just their perception?

What I shared with you aren’t excuses they’re reality.

No, they’re your perception of reality.

Your lack of knowledge of these situations is apparent and if you don’t know you don’t know. That’s fine, be glad you haven’t had to deal with these issues. But don’t pretend everyone plays on an even playing field.

Ah, well, you’re unique – no one else in the world has your experience, now do they?

 

[rtconstant]

No, I use actual data to show that “the filthy rich” are under-represented in the FBI Uniform Crime Report.

But you seem to ignore the various reasons behind that.

Other people on this thread, on the other hand, damn and condemn “the rich” based on nothing more than bias and wishful thinking.

Such as?

No, they’re excuses. You make the typical amateur error of mistaking correlation for causality.

Vern, calling someone amateur thats actually kind of cute. No Vern, you just have a tendancy to ignore factors when they are not convenient to you. You also make the amateur error of over-simplifying issues.

And I have had to deal with those issues – you aren’t the only person who knows poverty first-hand, you know.

Never claimed I was. I was just speaking to your apparently lack of either awareness or your disregard to scenarios that are inconvenient to espoused philosophies.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But you seem to ignore the various reasons behind that.

What is there to “ignore?” The claim was made that “the filthy rich” are worse than other socio-economic groups. The data refutes that.

Vern, calling someone amateur thats actually kind of cute. No Vern, you just have a tendancy to ignore factors when they are not convenient to you. You also make the amateur error of over-simplifying issues.

No, you have a tendency to wish away facts when they are inconvienent by introducing irrelevant material.

Never claimed I was. I was just speaking to your apparently lack of either awareness or your disregard to scenarios that are inconvenient to espoused philosophies.

Yet somehow you come across as being a know-it-all.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Here’s part of an article on the Super-Rich. The super rich are not doing you and me any favors, they are getting weathier and weathier at the expense of the middle class. Pretty soon there will be two classes of people - Poor and Rich. Wake up People!!!

"The Problem of the Super Rich
By Barbara Ehrenreich
June 12, 2007

There is a problem with the super-rich, several of them in fact. A bloated overclass can drag down a society as surely as a swelling underclass.

First, the Clemens example distracts from the reality that a great deal of the wealth at the top is built on the low-wage labor of the poor. Take Wal-Mart, our largest private employer and premiere exploiter of the working class: Every year, four or five of the people on Forbes magazine’s list of the ten richest Americans carry the surname Walton, meaning they are the children, nieces, and nephews of Wal-Mart’s founder. You think it’s a coincidence that this union-busting low-wage retail empire happens to have generated a $200 billion family fortune?

Second, though a lot of today’s wealth is being made in the financial industry, by means that are occult to the average citizen and do not seem to involve much labor of any kind, we all pay a price, somewhere down the line. All those late fees, puffed up interest rates and exorbitant charges for low-balance checking accounts do not, as far as I can determine, go to soup kitchens.
Third, the overclass bids up the price of goods that ordinary people also need–housing, for example. Gentrification is dispersing the urban poor into overcrowded suburban ranch houses, while billionaires’ horse farms displace the rural poor and middle class. Similarly, the rich can swallow tuitions of $40,000 and up, making a college education increasingly a privilege of the upper classes.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the huge concentration of wealth at the top is routinely used to tilt the political process in favor of the wealthy. Yes, we should acknowledge the philanthropic efforts of exceptional billionaires like George Soros and Bill Gates. But if we don’t end up with universal health insurance in the next few years, it won’t be because the average American isn’t pining for relief from escalating medical costs. It may well turn out to be because Hillary Clinton is, as The Nation reports, “the number-one Congressional recipient of donations from the healthcare industry.” And who do you think demanded those Bush tax cuts for the wealthy - the AFL-CIO? "

I have no idea why you are extolling the virtues of the super-rich, Humphries - unless you are rich, or idolizing the rich.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I have no idea why you are extolling the virtues of the super-rich, Humphries - unless you are rich, or idolizing the rich.

I have no idea why you are spreading this stuff, Crissie, unless you hate the rich, or envy them.

 

[nsper7]

Not for the reason you seem to imply. The “rich” in Jesus’ time were Quislings, allies of Rome. Yet He even reached out to them – choosing Matthew, a tax collector as an Apostle.

There is also another reason. Among many of the Jews (i.e. Pharisees of the time), wealth was considered an almost automatic sign of God’s blessing (and, thus, approbation). For example, look at the words of the Rich Young Ruler. The man seems to assume that he is either already Saved or that he is quite close to it:

And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” (Matthew 19:16, NASB)

*The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” (Matthew 19:20, NASB)

The same thing can be said about the Pharisees. They believed they were already Saved as well.

 

[vern_humphrey]

There is also another reason. Among many of the Jews (i.e. Pharisees of the time), wealth was considered an almost automatic sign of God’s blessing (and, thus, approbation). For example, look at the words of the Rich Young Ruler. The man seems to assume that he is either already Saved or that he is quite close to it:

And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” (Matthew 19:16, NASB)

*The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” (Matthew 19:20, NASB)

The same thing can be said about the Pharisees. They believed they were already Saved as well.

That thread goes right through to the Puritans, who believed only the Elect are saved, and those saved will have rewards in this world as well as the next.

But people who work yard, save money and take risks to start businesses are a different breed of cat – for one thing, they serve by creating the jobs the rest of us need to make our livings.

And second, through the magic of capitalism, with it’s open competition, they bring us quality goods and services at fair prices.

 

[stinkcat_14]

What is there to “ignore?” The claim was made that “the filthy rich” are worse than other socio-economic groups. The data refutes that.

A couple of points here:

1. Nobody has said that the “filthy rich” are worse than other groups. The question was raised as to whether the quest to become “filthy rich” is likely to lead someone into a situation where they are likely to make decisions that could put their soul in grave danger.
2. Second, the FBI data does not tell us about all crimes, just a subset of them. For example, the data does not tell us anything about white collar crime.
3. Finally, crime is a subset of immorality. Many immoral things are not illegal. For example, in the quest to become “filthy rich” one might be tempted to work 80 hours a week and neglect their families. This is not illegal of course, but it is immoral. Of course, I never said anything about the relative immorality of any socioeconomic group.

 

[Amolibri]

I have no idea why you are spreading this stuff, Crissie, unless you hate the rich, or envy them.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

MATTHEW 24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

 

[rlg94086]

MATTHEW 24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

Indeed. Are you saying that the “filthy rich” serve money (i.e. put money before God)? If so, that seems like a sweeping generalization, as has been explained many times on this thread.

 

[matt1985]

I think it is possible to become very rich with out being a bad person. How do we define what filthy rich is? In some areas of the country a $250,000 house hold income doesn’t seem to make you filthy rich. If you have a big family it would make you middle class or lower in some areas. But to a poor person in a third world country $250K is a huge sum of money.

I think you’ve lost your soul when you love money and will do anything to get it. The bible says love of money it the root of all evil, not money in and of it self.

 

[LilyM]

I think it’s difficult - Jesus said it was harder for a camel to go through the eye of a needle etc etc.

But then He said salvation was hard for all of us - ‘narrow the gate and difficult the path that leads to life’, so I don’t think the non-rich are off the hook in the slightest.

 

[rlg94086]

I think it’s difficult - Jesus said it was harder for a camel to go through the eye of a needle etc etc.

But then He said salvation was hard for all of us - ‘narrow the gate and difficult the path that leads to life’, so I don’t think the non-rich are off the hook in the slightest.

Exactly. I think though that the reason it is so difficult for the rich man (not impossible, as the OP asks) is that it is easy to be attached to the comforts that money can afford you. Any of us can think of our own cases, whatever our “status” and consider our attachment to the comforts of life.

To be willing to give everything up to follow Our Lord, as the rich man was instructed to do, is not easy for anyone. How many of us would give up our homes, cars, nice things, etc.? And, if some say, well the poor can’t afford those things, therefore it is easier, I would argue “no, that isn’t the case.” The desire for things they can’t afford is as equal an example of attachment to material things as the wealthy person who would not easily give them up. In fact, since they can’t afford them, they may well be even more attached.

As you say, salvation is hard for all of us.