Liberals, I'm Curious. How much money is enough? What's the max?

First, I’ve never mentioned prosperity gospel on this forum or advocated for anything similar. So your whole premise is false. But you seem obsessed with it so I’ll oblige you.

Because it is.

As did Union members. I loath modern unions. As did some bigots. I hate bigots. As did some wife beaters, pedophiles, murderers, and pick pockets all of which I disapprove of. And all of which have helped elect every president we’ve ever had. Your argument is plain silliness.

Trump is the only one at this point in time willing to do what is essential. I don’t have to like everything about him to support him when he is right on specific issues. Remember, you have chosen to subscribe to a worldview that offers an illusion of protection from being wrong while simultaneously precluding you from being right or correct.

Who thinks the same as me and on what issues specifically?
Since all you want to do is play games here’s one. Has there ever been a President you approved of everything they have said or done?

If you are honestly interested I will gladly share. But I’m not going to spend the time to just be subjected to your ad hominem attacks. If you want a discussion on the subject let me know.

 

Most Republicans I know support the concept of making your own bed and being subject to ones own earning ability.

I know that it's absolutely astounding to those on the left that some people might be poor and still support the rights of individualism and individual liberty, including not being wealthy.

This is opposed to the left, that believe in collectivism, class warfare, getting free ****, envy about those with more, and forceful take over of wealth for the purpose of re-distributuon.

What you are essentially saying is "those poor people are stupid because they dont condone theft for their own benefit".

I dont expect much less from those on the left.

 

Yes! If you live in a developed nation and you work a full time, you are most definitely entitled to earn a living wage.

I know there are companies that offer those jobs. They are called "sweat shops". Those "companies" should not exist in our country. Period!

Who said anything about $100K? You can immediately spot posters who don't know what they are talking about because they show they have no real arguments by resorting to strawman arguments

 

I would like to come back to this post you made here, because my previous approach
to making a point allowed for too many detours.
And because I think there may be something more important to be discussed here.
Quoted above was your response to Mathew 19:21.
Do you believe Mathew 19:21 only applies to one man for a specific reason?

 

What objection can there be to simply excising the first world difference for Firms leaving for merely cheaper labor; excising wages to our first world parity ensures Firms leave for more realistic capital based reasons than a "race to the bottom in wages for the Poorest".

 

So let's just take everyones wealth and make everyone equal. How could that go wrong?

 

No. There is deeper meaning. But that meaning is not for every Christian to literally sell everything they have. That was my point. I did not think it was complicated in any way.

 

Thanks.
So what might this deeper meaning be?

 

As with most scripture I believe the deeper meaning of the passage in question is multi layered.

The first layer is I think where we are starting. Namely the danger of selfishness in regards to wealth. Jesus was attempting to get the rich man to realign his priorities. We are to do the same. We are to have our relationship with God and others above our pursuit of wealth. It follows Christians who have their priorities in order will be charitable. The rest of scripture reinforces the importance of caring for our fellow man monetarily as well as other ways.

Beyond that there are lessons in idolatry. I think this is where the prosperity gospel gets a cut to the Achilles. In effect, the prosperity gospel elevates the earthly over the godly. I think we agree here.

Deeper yet is the relevance of the passage to the issue of legalism. Jesus was trying to get us all to see keeping the law doesn’t save. Salvation is granted on condition of the heart, not on adherence to law.

I’m not a theologian so I’m sure I’m missing some things but that’s what I have learned from this scripture.

 

How come you libs are so obsessed with Trumps tax returns. He was a billionaire prior to becoming President. Why arent you wondering how people like Pelosi became millionaires, somehow on their salaries?

 

Of course when the republicans controlled both houses of congress (2017-2018 comes to mind), if the estate tax was so horrific, you'd have thought that they would have eliminated from the tax code but I guess they felt this was an acceptable tax to have after all.

 

we don't know that he was a billionaire, other then that being his claim. Of course trump never, never would lie to the public so it must be true so why even show his income tax returns?

 

Since so many "conservatives" seem to want to return us to the '50s, I suggest adopting the tax rates from that fabled time:

 

And now for the truth:
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

 

That's no different than it would be now should the rate be say 50%. Not all would pay 50%.

 

Wasn't a literal statement. More of a general statement, which you did agree with. Love your passive aggressive Grammar nazi tactics.....

 

I'm fully aware of how the top marginal rate works. I thought others debating this topic were as well. My mistake...

 

So then in your opinion, when He said those things to the rich man,
He was deliberately exaggerating to illustrate a point.
In your view, He did not mean for those sayings (Mathew 19:21), to be taken literally.

Am I following you so far?

So if He had made that same statement to you (Mathew 19:21),
the intelligent being that you are, would have immediately recognized
that so called “deeper meaning”, and so ignored the idea of actually giving it all away.

Is that what you are saying?

I am curious to know...if He had said that (Mathew 19:21),
directly to you, personally, face to face,
what would your response have been?

 

First, do you think if the rich man had sold his possessions and given the money to the poor that action would have saved him?

 

Doesn't really matter what I think. Does it?
If your Christian God tells you to..."Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Would you debate the issue?

 

That’s what I’m trying to understand. If it doesn’t matter what you think why discuss it? I don’t know how to explain the issue any better than I already have to someone with no desire to understand or benefit from the lessons contained in the story.

If you are looking for an absolute I guess honestly it would be hard to know. Kind of like not knowing how a soldier will react the first time under fire.

Do you have anyone in your life you care about more than yourself? Imagine they asked you to make a huge sacrifice. What is the point of debate? Either you care enough about your relationship to do the thing or not. Debate is evidence the act isn’t from the heart.

But if God directly asked me to do any thing, including your question, I would aspire to do it. And not for treasure or salvation. But because of the underlying relationship.

It seems you are looking for a gotcha, but really the treatment of money and possessions in the Bible is the idea of stewardship. We are caretakers of what’s entrusted to us. The rich man of your text couldn’t manage that paradigm shift. So in effect, a believer has already relinquished ownership to God. But not responsibility to manage what he is entrusted with. The Bible is full of advice on using money/possessions for positive influence on other’s lives.

Again, I’m no theologian. This is just what I get from reading everything in context.

 

Sorry. Once again my post was not crystal clear,
so you were able to trample it beyond recognition. Lol
So you are saying that God doesn't really want you to...
"Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
In your opinion............. "the treatment of money and possessions in the Bible is the idea of stewardship".
"We are caretakers of what’s entrusted to us. The rich man of your text couldn’t manage that paradigm shift. So in effect, a believer has already relinquished ownership to God. But not responsibility to manage what he is entrusted with. The Bible is full of advice on using money/possessions for positive influence on other’s lives."
That's your opinion. True?

 

My first post on the subject was very clear. The text in question IS NOT a directive to every Christian to sell all they have and give it away.

The text contains many lessons for the Christian. Even some for nonbelievers if they are open to the idea. I explained them to the best of my ability. Yes, the last post was my opinion. I did not plagiarize. I’m not lying. It’s how I understand the text and the many others contained in scripture.

 

Nothing. EVERYONE is SOCIETY, after all. When every able bodied adult takes care of themselves, everyone is taken care of! (heck, there's a little bit to spare for the very old, the very young, and the disabled)

But you're quite right. When able bodied adults refuse to take care of themselves, society is disadvantaged. We agree on that.

 

So..... who is it who “refuse to take care of themselves”?

An awful lot of long term unemployed have serious mental health issues