Should christians love money so much ?!

I reckon its ok to be an athiest as long as you understand this too is a 'belief'...

Being dogmatic either way means you must truely 'believe' in your position without having any real proof.

Neither can prove there either is a god or there isn't.

So fervently believing either way comes from the same place. We could almost say that an athiest religiously believes that there is no God!

Gooram is religious he just doesnt know it!

I should add that I think its ok to say that "in all probability there is a god (and hence a believer) and vice versa".
 
search for the Big Bad Question.

i grapple with it as well.

faith is very difficult for me to grasp - i think it's just my past experiences.

but that's not to say those with faith should have to defend it. i think it's okay to ask why someone has faith, but to dissect the argument is pointless, as AR suggests - because asking why someone has faith means you cannot comprehend faith, so neither will you be able to comprehend the answer.

just my humble realisation. i still ask, though. the more i ask, the more i learn, and then i realise, faith isn't about knowledge. it's about faith.

and i'm still a little jealous of the fact that some people have this saving grace, and i don't.


BC - you and I have had differences of opinion on this and the other related thread...but I have to commend you mate, that is one of the best written and most sensible thought provoking comments I have seen to date.

well done!
 
Yo Blue card - no need to be jealous that you dont have faith. Its just a mind state. Many people have faith about different gods - so which one is right? Where is the truth? How do true believers reconcile this?

Those without HUGE faith may have solace in the chance that maybe god doesnt expect that much from us mere mortals. Maybe there are some things we cannot know. And just maybe it enough to live with a conscience and be kind to people. Unfortunatley that type of thinking doesnt breed "loyalty' and most religions have inbuilt mechanisms that make you CHOOSE SIDES.

My god is about inclusion not exclusion.
 
BC - you and I have had differences of opinion on this and the other related thread...but I have to commend you mate, that is one of the best written and most sensible thought provoking comments I have seen to date.

well done!

i engage people in debate, not argument.

argument is no respect for the other side.

cheers :)
 
Yo Blue card - no need to be jealous that you dont have faith. Its just a mind state. Many people have faith about different gods - so which one is right? Where is the truth? How do true believers reconcile this?

Those without HUGE faith may have solace in the chance that maybe god doesnt expect that much from us mere mortals. Maybe there are some things we cannot know. And just maybe it enough to live with a conscience and be kind to people. Unfortunatley that type of thinking doesnt breed "loyalty' and most religions have inbuilt mechanisms that make you CHOOSE SIDES.

My god is about inclusion not exclusion.

no - i'm a little jealous that some people can have that "release" that faith provides for them.
 
Isn't it fair to say that Jesus wasn't really the son of God, and that God cannot be referred to as 'he'? i.e. implying that god is a man or even a human. Metaphorically speaking, he was magical, but practically speaking he wasn't right? He didn't really turn water into wine (this was a metaphor for the rains ripening the grapes) and so on.

not sure how you come at all this or where you are going with it...how would you know that Jesus wasn't the son of God?? moreover, the bible quite clearly states that God is male and Jesus is His son. Now I know you aren't going to take that as an answer, but before you shoot me down from what position of evidence are you coming from. My faith tells me this to be true, but you seem to like evidence, so I am interested in knowing what brings this line of reasoning on.


I assume when you say Jesus saves, you mean by believing in Jesus, people save themselves? In which case, similar beliefs in bhudda or the non-belief of Jesus would provide the same self preservation, in which case it's not Jesus at all.

Discuss :)

Nope - Jesus saves, not me. Also quite clear in scripture.

the most important part of the bible and hence Christianity as a "religion" on the world stage is its point of difference, which is that no amount of works or attitude or goodness can save...

that is what we call the "scandal of Grace". It is by the grace of God and the grace of God alone that we are saved through our faith in Jesus Christ - not matter what we have done, how good or bad we have been. You can walk a million miles away from God but His grace means that it is less than a step back. It is not even a turnaround as such, God is right there waiting for whoever will acknowledge Him...regardless of where they are at.

again, I am sure that will raise more issues than it answers - but it is why we think so differently. and as Blue Card pointed out, it will be difficult to comprehend.
 
Blue card - mentally if you release yourself from that 'idea' then you are in the same position. Thats a buddhist idea. Dont beat yourself up over perception!
 
I reckon its ok to be an athiest as long as you understand this too is a 'belief'...

Being dogmatic either way means you must truely 'believe' in your position without having any real proof.

Neither can prove there either is a god or there isn't.

So fervently believing either way comes from the same place. We could almost say that an athiest religiously believes that there is no God!

Gooram is religious he just doesnt know it!

I should add that I think its ok to say that "in all probability there is a god (and hence a believer) and vice versa".

yes but it's a belief rooted in fact. And this is what it all boils down to for me. Sure I have to believe that science is credible, but because science is based on evidence, fact and proof, I am satisfied with that.

You tell me you have 5 dollars, I'll believe that, most people have 5 dollars and that's highly likely, you tell me you have a billion dollars, I would need to see it before I believed you. You tell me you have a god, I would react the same way. It's really that simple. To me there is no evidence of god and therefore I do not believe it. The fact that there is no evidence that there is no god (besides the lack of evidence that there is, I might add), is not valid argument for the existence of god.
 
Gooram - Why cant you just say you dont know if there is a god? Is that such a difficult position to take. You are actually saying - there is no god!. That means somehow you can prove that hypothesis.

I can check that you dont have 1 billion dollars by looking at your bank accounts and your tax return!
 
Gooram - Why cant you just say you dont know if there is a god? Is that such a difficult position to take. You are actually saying - there is no god!. That means somehow you can prove that hypothesis.

I can check that you dont have 1 billion dollars by looking at your bank accounts and your tax return!

You missed the point.

You cannot prove that something doesn't exist.

I think my position is best summed up here:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_21_1.html
http://www.strange-loops.com/athdisprovinggod.html
 
Gooram - great that we agree

Last 3 paragraphs (strange loops)


Qte

Now there might exist some other thing which one might label "God", based on something other than the mythologies of organized religions. This certainly seems more plausible, but personally the plausibility is in direct proportion to how specific and sure one's beliefs about such a thing is. For as someone starts saying "God is this and this, and has done that and that, and told me such and such, and wants us all to act in this way", it seems to become the same as organized religions (or at least how they were in their infancy - it would remain to be seen whether this person attracts an audience and it becomes an organized religion).


On the other hand, claims that there is something bigger out there, or that something exists beyond or around or within us all - vague spiritual or mystic ideas (as opposed to hard and fast claims of truth) - appeal to me and seem reasonable to tentatively explore when the person considering them is a seeker rather than an evangelical. That is, if there is something worthy of being called "God" (though a term without so much baggage might be in order), I have trouble imagining that it would be something a few people could really come to know directly and fully (unless it was such that it 'revealed itself' in some undeniable way to us all). Any mystery that can be so easily solved does not seem worth calling "God" in the religion-free sense of the term.

And while we may not be able to disprove (or prove) any conception of "God" (or any conception of anything), I suggest it is reasonable to give the most consideration to those which do not seem based on made-up myths (claims that precisely this happened in exactly that way). Thus, in general, it is more worth contemplating "spiritual" ideas (to use another term loaded with baggage) which are put forth tentatively or speculatively by seekers rather than assertions made by those who have already found the Truthtm.

Unqte

We are spiritual brothers dude!:D

Maybe you didnt read it till then end - LOL
 
should Christians love money so much?

Great thread guys !

My take to this as a believer is to ask myself this question-
Who/What is my master -God or Money?
For me personally it means,What do i live for?
Where is my identity?
for example - If i lost all the money i had, would i be totally broken and lost and destroyed or would i say "God its all in yr hands,you are my provider and you will restore me in yr time.I trust you "
(obviuosly a christian would be spewin as we are human but where is their heart at the end of the day?)

God also said to us
"Seek first his Kingdom and his righteousness and ALL these things will be added to you as well"
Its not a legalistic thing being a Christian .Jesus came to set us free from legalistic laws and religous rules.
So having money and enjoying it just part of being a child of God .
God promises us "more than enough for every good work !"
He provides us with plenty
so we can do his work and be generous on every occasion.
 
Last edited:
actually, I used to be a Buddhist because my whole family are Buddhists.

My circle of friends is approx 50/50..and I can say that my christian friends far more giving than my Buddhism friends.

Buddhism community/temples also depend of donations and they only receive enough to maintain the temple and draw maybe a small wage. They rely on volunteers.

Unlike Churches which are very wealthy and can afford to build communities in third world countries.

So you really do need money!

For Buddhism, when they give money it's only because they want a blessing in return and even then, the donation is very little. They are thinking of or themselves rather than thinking of helping the temple. I know coz all my family are like that. Especially on special Chinese auspicious dates where everyone flocks to the temple to pray.

I also go to temple because I want to pay respect to my ancestors (buddhist burial) and I respect the buddhism religion but i don't believe it. Yet, I give generously and more so than the so called staunch buddhists. Why? coz they still money to maintain the temple,volunteers, fruits, flowers etc

For Christians, we give because we have already been blessed and our blessings are so abundant that no matter how much we give, it would never equal that amount. That's why you often hear stories where people give their last cent...A student giving $50 which is all they have is more than someone giving $50 but they have thousands.
 
Nope Gooram - it wasnt me that said that. Maybe you are getting hung up on JESUS.

Hi Sue - there are different forms of buddhism - are you thai? or are you tibetan? Or sri lankan? Maybe you are ZEN?

As I said I am not actually a buddhist but the essense of buddhism is something I like very much. The buddhism you are talking about seems to be more cultural thing - much like Roman catholosism doesnt necessarily define christianity.
 
HOWEVER (bare with me for a moment) - Lets take a broader look at the overall question.

Here is the question - Why are Christians heavily represented in conservative politics? Why are right wing political groups almost always christian? (there is a link between the rich classes and conservative politics - ask anyone in Toorak or Double pay who they vote for!)

When you can answer that question then I think you can answer the original question!

BTW - anyone can have a crack at answering!

As a left wing-leaning happy clappy Christian, this is something which has often perplexed and frustrated me!! As a "left" voter, I'm certainly in the minority in many churches. I think there has been a big influence here from American christianity, because I dont' see the same extent of right wing views in the UK or Asian churches.

I am friends with many American Christians, and there is often a pervading "separation" viewpoint.....keeping away from non-believers as much as possible, as well as a strong anti-govt viewpoint.... that govt should be involved as little as possible in our lives. Thus the trend to home schooling, and a stronger link to the republican party, which generally promotes "small govt".

In Australia, I have seen a significant shift away from this all pervading right wing approach over the past 10-15 years, and I think it will continue to change, particularly as the church becomes more multicultural, and the left wing parties in Australia becomes more conservative.

Obviously, there are moral issues which concern many Christians, and if a political party is totally against the common Christian viewpoint, its difficult to vote for them. I don't want to extend this to a political debate, but for me, the Greens are a good example of this. Christians may be committed to conservationism, but so many of the Greens policies are so radically opposed to conservative Christian values that it is very difficult to support them.

One thing I'm interested in is how Christians react when the right wing parties have strong moral values but dont have a compassionate approach to the poor/ refugees etc. I personally don't think that's a biblical approach - from my point of view, both are important. But many Christians will only look at morality and not compassion, which I think is short-sighted.

I also think its important that churches don't give an opinion from the pulpit about political parties, although I think its reasonable to comment on both moral and compassionate issues. In our denomination, pastors can be sacked for bringing political comment. But I think in the 60's and 70's, it was fairly common for the priest/ pastor to take a political stand, and inform the congregation that to be a good Christian you had to vote for the conservative party. So, many in that generation have accepted this without maybe questioning whether the party has a "biblical" foundation, or just a conservative foundation.

and I think the conservative parties have traditionally marketed themselves much better to the Christian voter. In our case, both Liberal and Labor have very similar viewpoints on moral issues, but most peoples perception is probably that Liberal is stronger in this area.

Sorry, another long post.........

Pen
 
PennyK

Awesome reply.

Do you think there is room for an outsider to think that maybe many christians fear alot of things. As do conservatives. And maybe fear of being poor is a reason money is so important.

Fear of god, fear of immigrants, fear of gays, fear of terrorists etc etc

That certainly is how many non christian left wingers view many from the christian right.
(the politics of fear)

Again we are talking in huge generalisations here...so need to be careful.

I need to declare that im a happily married, lefty, cafe latte sipping, pseudo intellectual from an inner city mebourne suburb.

cheers
Aussie
 
Last edited:
Back
Top