Z
Zaccheus
Guest
J. K. Rowling got famous by writing books that a lot of people love to read. She got rich the same way.
- Status
T
TMC
Guest
I don’t think that is true.
Even if it were, its hard to get and stay rich without a love of money. At a minimum, you have to love money more than helping others.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
You have my sympathy, my brother in travails.
I too, have so many things to be thankful for. 
How can we possibly bear it? 
Ah well, we’ll just have to endure our lot.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
This is a false Dichotomy. If I have a mind for charity as well as money, by amassing more money I am able to give more.
I spend years saving up and investing, building up a solid foundation that will continue to grow even if I don’t put anything else into it. Then, once that foundation is lain, I can take the money I’m earning from that and engage in generous charity. As the fund grows I am able to give more and more. Then, when I die, or when my wife dies, we can take that money and set up a fund that will grow in perpetuity and continue to give well past the end of my Earthly life.
Money is neutral. It’s all about how you use it.
T
TMC
Guest
An interesting viewpoint, but I don’t believe it is consistent with the Gospels. Sounds more like prosperity gospel.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
It’s not even close to prosperity Gospel. The prosperity gospel is “if you love God and you’re doing good, God guarantees you a monetarily-successful life.”
This is more akin to the parable of the three stewards. Each was given a sum of money and entrusted with growing it. Two of them did, and in the the parable they are praised for the exceptional handling of their gifts. The buries his money in a hole and does nothing with it, and he is condemned.
If I have been given the grace of material abundance, that is something I have been given stewardship over and have an obligation to use well. It’s not a gift for loving God, it’s not some benefit for being a Christian. It’s a particular type of cross that I need to remain constantly aware of to prevent it from overwhelming my devotion to God. It may make my worldly-life easier, but it makes my spiritual life more difficult because comfort breeds complacency. It becomes easy to love money, which is the problem.
1 Tim 6:10
It is the love of money, the pursuit of money above God, which is condemned.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
What about all the other times Jesus condemns wealth? Seriously, you are the first educated Catholic (and I believe you are both) that does not acknowledge that there is an inherent issue with wealth.
Maybe the issue is scale. I might agree with you if we are talking about someone that has a very comfortable lifestyle and more money than they need, but not a huge excess. Say around top 10% in the US. But I don’t think there is a case for applying the same reasoning to extreme wealth - the $100M and up folks.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Cite me a time when Jesus condemns wealth in and of itself, completely detached from the nature of the person with the wealth.
I don’t believe in holding double standards. The amount of money you have doesn’t change the underlying principles. If I make $1mil per year, I have an obligation to use a significant portion of that money for the good of others. How much of it is between me and God. If I make $100mil per year, I have the same obligation commensurate with the amount I’m making and my discussions with God.
Maybe I spend my whole life saving and building up a fund that makes tons of money on dividends, and I have determined through prayer that the best course of action is to give a percentage of that annually, but otherwise allow it to grow during my life. Then, either in my will or when I know my time is coming, I set up a fund with it that is going to go on growing and giving as long as the economy exists. I don’t love the money, I’m not building it up just to get more. I have a specific purpose in mind, a specific goal in how I desire to do good with that money. I don’t love it, I want to use to to do the most good in the best way I can come up with.
I never said there weren’t inherent issues with it. I cited those issues very clearly in my last post. Having money is dangerous. It’s a very particular cross that you forget about because it doesn’t really feel like a cross. It would usually be far better for a person to give up their money and live as a monk.
But at the same time, I have a family to think about, and money is a fundamental requirement for raising a family in America. So, since I can’t just give up everything and move my family into a monastery, I need to make money and I need to use it wisely. Allowing it to grow is not inherently unwise, I just need to remain constantly aware of how it impacts my relationship with God.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
There is Lazarus and the Rich Man, the Camel through the Eye, the young rich man who wants to follow Him. Those come immediately to mind, I am sure there are others.
Last edited:
I was taught, in my religious education class, that in the parable of Lazarus, the rich man didn’t go to hell just because he was rich, but because he sat idly by with his riches while Lazarus had nothing.ProdglArchitect:
There is Lazarus and the Rich Man, the Camel through the Eye, the young rich man who wants to follow Him. Those come immediately to mind, I am sure there are others.
And our teacher warned us that just the opposite can happen; a poor man can go to hell; a rich man can go to heaven.
T
TMC
Guest
I have also heard that interpretation. The problem is, the text does not say that. Abraham tells Lazarus that he is in torment because “you received what was good during your lifetime.” It says nothing about him treating anyone incorrectly. And Lazarus is not where he is because he did anything good, but merely because he is poor. You can read in more, but the text does not support more. The most you can say is that the implication is that the rich man should have given away his riches, which would, of course, make him not rich.
C
Convert3
Guest
Few people with that amount of wealth have it in cash. Most of that wealth is in ownership of businesses or real estate that create jobs or give people places to live or build businesses. If the business was liquidated it wouldn’t be worth $100 million because it would no longer be generating new wealth. The value of anything is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it.
T
TULIPed
Guest
So $100MM net worth is the cutoff for not making it to heaven. Roger. (Wouldn’t it be weird if there were some of the $100MM folks who gave away a whole bunch of their money - like say…$10 or $15MM - do those folks make the cut?)
Wait a minute - what if your scale applies to everyone - like the whole world?
Come to think of it, nearly half the world lives on $5.50/day according to the World Bank. I’m pretty sure they would set the bar a bit lower. Oh snap…that would mean that probably…I’m rich.
Never mind.
T
TMC
Guest
No, I did not say that. I said I might be willing to accept ProdglArchitects argument if he was using the term “rich” to refer to people that were not really rich - just comfortable. I used $100M as an extreme number in the hopes that an extreme example would clarify my position. Obviously that didn’t work.
C
Convert3
Guest
This demonstrates a severe lack of knowledge on how an economy works. Wealth is created by providing a product or service desired by others. The process of providing this product or service creates jobs for others. The more skill required for the job demands higher wages. Price and quality and need of the product or service will affect how many purchase it. Supply and demand affect the price. A lot of people put their life savings into a business and fail. Some succeed, and a few may become wealthy. They took a lot of risk to gain that wealth and created jobs along the way. People learning more skills and performing well will earn more money.
There is no taking from one to pay the other.
V
vsedriver
Guest
Your interpretation is incorrect. The rich man is in torment because when he was alive he failed to use his wealth for the good of others. Lazarus is where he is because of his earthly sufferings.
No where does scripture condemn wealth in and of itself. It is only how people deal with wealth that it involves a moral question. ProdglArchitect is correct in what he says.
Scripture says a laborer is worth his wages. It doesn’t make a distinction between those paid a lot and those paid a little. It seems to me that many people assume that the rich don’t work. Sure there are some who inherit a lot of wealth but the vast majority are working. Just because they aren’t sitting on an assembly line doesn’t mean they aren’t working.
Personally, my family loves the rich. We are a family of artisans. Without the rich we wouldn’t be able to make a living.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Lots of people write books, she just got lucky out of all of them.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
He was damned for not caring for the poor, not simply for having money. He enjoyed the finer things of life while not even giving Lazarus the scraps from his table.
I already acknowledge that wealth makes it increasingly difficult to obtain salvation. I contend in light of other passages (such as with the rich young man), that it is not about the money itself, but the attachment to it.
He was too attached to his possession to give them up and follow Jesus. Once again, the possessions were not the issue, but rather his attachment to them was. I admit, this one’s really hard for me. I like my stuff, it’s something I’m working on. However, that was true of me when I had little money. You don’t need money to be overly attached to things, though it does help.
F
Fauken
Guest
If he was condemned solely because of his wealth, I would question why Jesus mentioned that he never shared so much as the scraps on his table to the beggar to begin with. Sounds like extraneous information, which would be weird to include in a parable.
I also would then have to wonder about the state of the Church, given its wealth. Has Satan then prevailed over the Church because it has wealth?
J
JimG
Guest
Is it the case that a Christian is expected to spend everything he earns during his working life? Is he expected to enter into old age with no assets, no pension, no savings, so that his relatives must take care of him for the rest of his life?
Is it wrong to build up an estate and leave a large sum to the Church when you die?
Are we seeing a new “sola” theology here? Sola poverty: only poverty can save you? Accumulate wealth and you are lost.
Is it wrong to build up an estate and leave a large sum to the Church when you die?
Are we seeing a new “sola” theology here? Sola poverty: only poverty can save you? Accumulate wealth and you are lost.
- Status