"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with
much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest
with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly
wealth, who will trust you with true riches?"
This is one of the instances where Jesus is quite clear in sending the message that people who are trustworthy over whatever they have been given (in most of the examples He uses it's money), will be given more because of their trustworthiness.
We see the same theme in Matthew 25 (the part most progressives ignore).
"
14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag,[a] each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The
man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five.
‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have
gained five more.’
21 “His
master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been
faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
22 “The
man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted
me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’
23 “His
master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been
faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
24 “Then
the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I
knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and
gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’
26 “His
master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest
where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well
then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that
when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
28 “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For
whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance.
Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’"
It's quite clear that the man (God) is rewarding His servants for increasing His wealth, while punishing the one servant for failing to increase His wealth.
It seems that to simply take these teaching as a woodenly literal condemnation of "money" or "wealth" is to miss the point.
I sat in a CE class the other day where the teacher was talking about how race based real estate covenants have denied people of certain races that ability to accumulate and increase generational wealth. It seems like one side of the progressive tribe is advocating for increasing wealth (as do most of the folks doing micro lending), while another side is decrying wealth as bad.
Just one more interesting progressive paradox.
Oh, and just one more instance of the progressives ignoring a seemingly clear reference to a Hell where people are in discomfort.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Art,
For obvious reasons, I'll comment on your comment here.
You are clearly correct. Jesus clearly isn't condemning "money" or "wealth" per se, He's simply condemning the uses and positions that people sometimes put money too.
I could point out multiple friends of mine who, because of their (earned) wealth/money have been able to bless multitudes of people in many ways. I'm talking about thousands of people receiving free medical care across the globe. Thousands of orphaned children being provided with clean, safe, housing, adequate food, and education. Support of multiple churches, and para church organizations, and more. Yet some would call these people "evil" or deny them"the gospel". Some might even brag about the extent of their own "good works" which are quantifiably and impact many fewer people.
This is the problem you get into when you start to judge people based on exterior appearances. I'd argue that placing the concept of "simple living" up on a pedestal is simply the other side of the coin of making money your god.
Those discussions dealing with "the poor" too often miss the point of the various Biblicsl passages used to support their rather socialist position. Rather than preaching against wealth, the point is to put God first in all things. More often than not, that lesson is so glaringly obvious. Take the parable of the rich man who stored up treasures for himself and died when he thought he was ready to sit back and enjoy life. The point of the story was that throughout his empire building he had done nothing to lay up treasures in heaven. That is, if he was only going to do one or the other, But it isn't the point that you can't create wealth WHILE putting God first...serving Him above all else.
The whole "bring the Gospel to the poor" just isn't a financial state of being type of thing.
I agree.
I’ll post this here for lack of a better location.
Apparently this while playing the victim, while only being victimized by one’s own stubbornness is a good look from the idiot gallery nowadays.
Because we all know that Dan is the sole arbiter of proper interpretation of scripture.
I guess, as we see so often, the “wealth/money is based” crew don’t really mean what they say. Not surprised
So, in Acts when people chose to sell their possessions for money, then gave that money to those in need, was that money “good” or “bad”?
If the poor are blessed, and have a gospel directed specifically at them, why would we want to contaminate the “blessed poor” with “unrighteous wealth/money”?
Does the money somehow become less “unrighteousness” when it’s taken from those deemed “rich” and given to those deemed poor?
Since when have we started imputing human traits to inanimate objects?
It’s interesting that people claim that money/wealth is the problem, yet when Jesus addresses the Pharisees, He looked at the condition of their “heart”, not the size of their wallets, when did the “heart” become where ones money lives?
This is like saying that computers and smartphones are bad because some people use them for viewing porn.
Things would be so much better if all the world were poor, wouldn't it?
Craig: "when did the “heart” become where ones money lives?"
Jesus: "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
If one's treasure is mammon, it's held within one's heart.
Sort of an easy answer, actually.
Yeah...it's more than a little curious that we see such irrational/illogical takes on what is so plain and clear.
Yes, that’s why Dan and Feo have chosen to be poor, because they don’t want to be excluded from the gospel and being blessed.
Nice prooftext, although it doesn’t actually help your position. I guess manipulating Jesus words to make them fit your hunch isn’t particularly new.
One of Craig’s diversionary strategies is to make every effort to move the debates to his page. He won’t allow everyone to appear there. That way he’s never confronted with original biblical languages and more. Marshal gave it to college try with unrighteous mammon. But Craig doesn’t so easily make things up and lie as Marshal does. So he dodges more and diverts to his page.
I'm allowing this for a couple of reasons. Primarily so Feo won't whine excessively when I respond to the falsehoods contained.
The only reason I "move" discussions here is that it's the only place where I won't be randomly deleted and have lies told about the deleted comments. It is in no way a diversion, it's simply what I've been forced to do.
There is no one who is permanently not allowed to comment here. You know what you need to do, and choose not to. Not my fault.
As far as "making things up", pot/kettle.
But if this continuous taunting somehow inflates your self esteem, I can't help you with that.
Really. The reason for taking up a discussion and moving it here is obvious. I've posted comments so according to the letter of Dan's law and that didn't prevent him from deleting them. I now await word from Dan regarding my future responses because I don't want my comments deleted.
I'm not going to post it, but I want to point out a couple of facts.
1. Feo has never, ever, commented on this site with an actual plan, complete to details and definitions of terms, a plan that will guarantee a significant reduction on gun violence. He's played cat and mouse, made some claims, but hasn't done what's been asked.
2. Feo is not "blocked". Unfortunately Blogger doesn't seem to allow blocking individuals, only moderating them. The very fact that his comments occasionally show up give the lie to his claims of being blocked.
I realize that he somehow needs this victim status and that he seems to revel in it. What's interesting is that Dan has no coherent, consistently enforced, articulated, standard for his censorship of comments or "bans", yet that draws no criticism.
The simple fact is, if I want a conversation to be inclusive and preserved, it has to happen here.
The simple, indisputable fact is that there has never been a detailed plan with definitions and details posted on this blog.
I’m sorry if this simple fact is confusing. I’m sorry that attempts to dodge, and obfuscate haven’t worked. I’m sorry that victimhood is so attractive.
I do so appreciate it when people make stuff out of whole cloth.
Now and then I actually read some of feo's comments, including some that end up in my spam folder. (I maintain the right to do whatever the hell I want, whenever the hell I want according to my own standards and criteria, which actually don't change as often as Dan's) One caught my eye wherein feo whines that he posted his "plan" at Dan's, and gave the date of his postings. I went back and found them and they appear to be no more than a rehash of the list that I spent two posts debunking...albeit with a few additions. I intend to do a post about them soon, just because I enjoy showing feo that he's nowhere near as intellectually superior as he likes to believe in his little fantasy world. Should be fun. Stay tuned.
I sometimes skim his comments, if something catches my eye, I’ll read them.
I’m this case, I’ve specifically asked for a plan, not a list, with definitions and details here. He hasn’t posted anything with details and definitions anywhere that I’ve seen.
It’s all about maintaining and cultivating victimhood at the expense of anything else.
One thing I've noticed s that "all" never actually means "all" when a progressive is involved. Apparently "new" is the next word that gets redefined. It seems as though "new" is now defined as "what someone has wanted for months">
I'm trying to get to as many social media threads as I can, including posts of my own, before the middle of November when my work schedule and family events increase dramatically. As you're aware, feo insists he's provided his "plan" yet again at Dan's. Apparently it's no more than a slightly expanded version of his list of failed gun control proposals and a fantasy that doing all of them at once makes them effective. That seems to be the plan. Nothing about what could possibly make that true.
Post a Comment