Evidence for God from Science

My whole point, while misunderstood and apparently not put correctly, was in context of the Christian response and not governmental at all.
.
.

Something cannot be socialistic if you are not talking about government. Further, socialism isn't about "being equal" either. Further, even if it did, my comments have nothing to do with being equal. My point, then, can neither advocate socialism nor can it trend toward socialism; it can have NO relationship to socialism. My comments and the philosophy of socialism deal with totally separate spheres of reality, and even if we used your faulty understanding of the term in which people are forced to be financially equal, my comments STILL couldn't be considered socialistic. I made, nor defend, no such point.

Jac3510 wrote:Something cannot be socialistic if you are not talking about government. Further, socialism isn't about "being equal" either. Further, even if it did, my comments have nothing to do with being equal. My point, then, can neither advocate socialism nor can it trend toward socialism; it can have NO relationship to socialism. My comments and the philosophy of socialism deal with totally separate spheres of reality, and even if we used your faulty understanding of the term in which people are forced to be financially equal, my comments STILL couldn't be considered socialistic. I made, nor defend, no such point.

Ok so my relating this to the "S" word is skewed, but in my mind I knew what I was saying.

My question still remains however. How did you come to the conclusion that $1 Million dollars is too much for a Christian to spend on a home? Where is this "Christian" line you draw on homes, cars, vacations and whatever else you think should be limited?
.
.

Certainly within one's means, and overall, within the limits of modesty. The question is how we should use God's blessings, whihc itself is based on the question, for what purpose does God bless us? I believe He blesses us so that we can be a blessing to others. So the limit should be drawn at the point at which your own wants come before others' needs.

Jac3510 wrote:Certainly within one's means, and overall, within the limits of modesty. The question is how we should use God's blessings, whihc itself is based on the question, for what purpose does God bless us? I believe He blesses us so that we can be a blessing to others. So the limit should be drawn at the point at which your own wants come before others' needs.

Within one's means is totally acceptable. Modesty is a personal call. One man's modest living is another man's lavish overindulgence and vice versa.
.
.

I didn't know modesty was relative. I can see every teenage girl (and boy, for that matter) rejoicing when they find that out . . .

Let's not forget that third thing about others' needs relative to your wants, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

Interesting. The early church certainly did share with each other. Later though we see Paul collecting donations for them abroad. Is this a result of their economic model not working well, the persecution they were enduring with the Jewish state seizing their assets, both or other factors?

ageofknowledge wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

Interesting. The early church certainly did share with each other. Later though we see Paul collecting donations for them abroad. Is this a result of their economic model not working well, the persecution they were enduring with the Jewish state seizing their assets, both or other factors?

The early church wasn't "communist." The fact that some Christians appealed to certain texts that talk about the way Christians tread one another in order to establish a biblical basis for their own form of government doesn't establish their interpretation of the text as valid.

As far as your specific question, Paul collected donations because of a famine (Acts 11:27-29).

Jac3510 wrote:I didn't know modesty was relative. I can see every teenage girl (and boy, for that matter) rejoicing when they find that out . . .

Let's not forget that third thing about others' needs relative to your wants, too.

Modesty in relation to luxuries allowed a Christian. However modesty in your context above IS relative.
.
.

Square footage, space needs, number of cars in the garage, number of acres, etc. is hardly relative. Modesty goes along with needs. If you're right, then some Christian with a seven to eight figure income can feel free to spend every single dime of it on himself and claim he's being "modest" because the neighborhood he lives in.

Modesty isn't relative because needs aren't relative. Beyond that, each one of us will stand before Jesus and give an account on how we used the wealth He lent to us during life. Those of us who felt the need to spend it on ourselves while our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ starved to death are accountable to Him, not me. I just can't personally understand that kind of selfishness.

Jac3510 wrote:Square footage, space needs, number of cars in the garage, number of acres, etc. is hardly relative. Modesty goes along with needs. If you're right, then some Christian with a seven to eight figure income can feel free to spend every single dime of it on himself and claim he's being "modest" because the neighborhood he lives in.

Modesty isn't relative because needs aren't relative. Beyond that, each one of us will stand before Jesus and give an account on how we used the wealth He lent to us during life. Those of us who felt the need to spend it on ourselves while our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ starved to death are accountable to Him, not me. I just can't personally understand that kind of selfishness.

I don't disagree with you Jac but I'm not sure where you're going with this. Take Bill Gates for instance. He is arguably the wealthiest man on earth, built himself a $100 million castle, and for all intents and purposes, lives like a king. On the other hand, to go with his title as the wealthiest man, he is also the largest individual contributor to charity, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Are you saying he should have done away with living in luxury, sold the majority of stock and given it to the poor? I mean there's something to be said about giving once, or making sure the gift of charity keeps on giving and the only way to make that happens is managing one's wealth wisely (save for the occasional castle).

Jac3510 wrote:Square footage, space needs, number of cars in the garage, number of acres, etc. is hardly relative. Modesty goes along with needs. If you're right, then some Christian with a seven to eight figure income can feel free to spend every single dime of it on himself and claim he's being "modest" because the neighborhood he lives in.

Modesty isn't relative because needs aren't relative. Beyond that, each one of us will stand before Jesus and give an account on how we used the wealth He lent to us during life. Those of us who felt the need to spend it on ourselves while our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ starved to death are accountable to Him, not me. I just can't personally understand that kind of selfishness.

Again, your opinion is just that...an opinion. You have no scriptural backing for such statements other than your own ideas of a "modest" living. To a millionaire, a modest living may be a home in Beverly Hills, where a lavish living may be in the Pacific Palisades peninsula, on the bluffs in Malibu or a Santa Barbara ranch...
.
.

Ok, Bav. Like I said, if a man can justify such behavior before God, then good for him. I can't. If you don't naturally see the inherent selfishness and utter depravity of living in "modest" multi-million dollar homes while your fellow Christians are dying of starvation, then we really don't have anything more to talk about.

Jac3510 wrote:Ok, Bav. Like I said, if a man can justify such behavior before God, then good for him. I can't. If you don't naturally see the inherent selfishness and utter depravity of living in "modest" multi-million dollar homes while your fellow Christians are dying of starvation, then we really don't have anything more to talk about.

As Byblos alluded to, a millionaire that gives back in charity is doing his/her part. How much would you expect them to give. What is your cap of luxury and where do you draw the line?

Jac3510 wrote:Certainly within one's means, and overall, within the limits of modesty. The question is how we should use God's blessings, whihc itself is based on the question, for what purpose does God bless us? I believe He blesses us so that we can be a blessing to others. So the limit should be drawn at the point at which your own wants come before others' needs.

...except it doesn't sound like you believe your own statement. In fact, you can't even define "modesty". If Bill Gates, as Byblos is saying, gives to charity to the tune of millions...what more should he do? Where should he live and what should he drive?

My whole point here is that God is the one that blesses and if God is blessing "Bill Gates" with billions...what's the problem? All you see, Jac, is Bill making more and more $$, but don't realize that without him making more and more $$, he cannot keep up his charitable work either. What would you have him do? Should he sell off everything and give it all to your Christian organization? You'd be happy, but in the long run, charity itself would suffer the loss of his continual help.

So then tell me, what are YOU doing without for Christians starving to death? What about the TIME you spend on here? Is time also worth $$? Couldn't you be out serving food at a soup kitchen or passing out meals on the street? I'm sure there's lots of better things you could be out doing for "starving Christians" rather than arguing about whether God's promise of testing Him in tithing is relevant today...and is it ONLY "starving Christians" you'll help?
.
.

Byblos wrote:I don't disagree with you Jac but I'm not sure where you're going with this. Take Bill Gates for instance. He is arguably the wealthiest man on earth, built himself a $100 million castle, and for all intents and purposes, lives like a king. On the other hand, to go with his title as the wealthiest man, he is also the largest individual contributor to charity, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Are you saying he should have done away with living in luxury, sold the majority of stock and given it to the poor? I mean there's something to be said about giving once, or making sure the gift of charity keeps on giving and the only way to make that happens is managing one's wealth wisely (save for the occasional castle).

I'm sorry Byblos. I missed your post. I seem to recall that Jesus was far more impressed with the widow's small gift than the large gifts given by the local rich people. I, for one, am not the least bit impressed when someone gives millions of dollars, especially when their income is in the hundreds of millions. Let's make it even more extreme. Suppose I have a one hundred million dollar income, and I give 90 million of it away. WOW!!! Seems like I'd be justified in spending that ten million all on myself, right?

I don't think so. Have you ever seen Schindler's list? Watch this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvGu3Y9e8y0 - starting especially at 2:53. It brings me to tears every time I see it.

Forgive me, but I don't care how much a person gives. To go beyond your needs, to live in luxury (and justify it as "modesty") is to watch passively as some people die, suffer, find themselves in Hell, etc. How many missionaries could be funded with that $45,000 our "modest" rich person had to spend on their third car (but no worries, because their neighbors all have seven!). How many times have we prayed for God on behalf of some to help with some financial needs, and we were unable to (or unwilling) to help because we just had to have that 52 inch TV, or perhaps my $200 suit just doesn't quite stand up next to my bosses $2000 one.

Forgive me, but it's wrong. There are people dying all around us, and we choose to live in luxury and call it "modesty" and watch callously while others around us have no food, no shelter, as their utilities are cut off . . .

So no, forgive me, but I'm not impressed with Bill Gates' massive contributions. And I don't think Jesus is. He's impressed with the widow's two mites. So am I.

edit:

BW - just like said before, you know nothing of my financial situation, nor will you. Much less do you know anything about what I give, nor will you. The rest of what you said I already talked about with Zoe and clarified by views there. In any case, even if I were an utter hypocrite, that doesn't for one second change the fact that it is flat wrong indulge yourself while your brother starves. One sin hardly justifies another.