Perhaps you can furnish us with a non-arbitrary threshold, biblically informed, as to when rich-status kicks in. Otherwise, I think one is well within one's intellectual rights in considering Jesus's preoccupation to be with the excessive love of money, to the detriment of helping one's fellow human being, as is consistent with the tenor of the rest of the NT. — Virgo Avalytikh

I couldn’t disagree more. Wealth precludes the possibility of salvation. I am very comfortable in my home among my possessions as I’m sure billions of people are. It’s not supposed to be easy to garner God’s grace. It takes real work. Sorry to burst your bubble.

However, I believe we should each believe whatever gets us through this life whilst doing the least harm to others. That’s my motto.

The Trinity is a theory that does NOT necessarily follow from the Bible. Hence, I consider it to be a heresy. — alcontali

It probably is, as is most of the tenets of faith of the various denominations. So, back to my original point. What did Jesus actually say about God, God’s commandments, and about himself? Who better personifies what he said? The natives or the pilgrims?

Well, grace is not 'garnered'; that is why it is grace.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-9)

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy (Rom. 9:16).

So, you will not provide us with the threshold so as to determine the rich from the non-rich, on which the whole question of salvation apparently turns.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-9) — Virgo Avalytikh

Jesus never said this. This is from an Apostle’s epistle.

Anyone in the middle to upper classes in a First World country is wealthy.

Anyone in the middle to upper classes in a First World country is wealthy. — Noah Te Stroete

Ok: why?

Jesus said you must turn from sin and repent. The Apostles were corrupt, self-serving zealots out to start an organized religion. I don’t think anything Jesus said about spreading his gospel was meant to be organized into a hierarchical institution.

It probably is, as is most of the tenets of faith of the various denominations. — Noah Te Stroete

As I mentioned earlier, this is only the case in Christianity, which is not a formal system unlike Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism and Islam.

What did Jesus actually say about God, God’s commandments, and about himself? Who better personifies what he said? The natives or the pilgrims? — Noah Te Stroete

There are two major problems with that question.

First of all, this is a jurisprudential question, while Christianity is not a formal system. Hence, there is no deductive method available to answer your question. You are treating Christianity as if it were a formal system and that is where you make a serious mistake.

Secondly, in his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus clarified that did not come to alter, modify, abolish or abrogate Jewish law. Therefore, the opinions of Jesus and the opinions in Christianity are simply not the same. If you want to know what Jesus would have said, you will need to ask the question to a religious scholar in Jewish law. If you want to know what Christians would think, there will be as many answers as there are Christians. It is important to emphasize that Christians generally do not think like Jesus did. Again, Christianity is not a formal system and is therefore not suitable to answer jurisprudential questions.

Just compare it to the way first century Jesus and his disciples lived while he was preaching. Who then is more like Christ in his lifestyle? The homeless beggar or me or you?

My question, again, is: if, as you insist, being wealthy definitively bars one from salvation, and that this is what is implied by Jesus's own words, how do you know that this threshold lies precisely where you insist that it does? Especially since the concepts you invoke - 'middle class' and 'first-world country' - were unknown to Jesus himself, and were never mentioned by him? Is there not just the slightest chance that you are engaging in anachronism here?

Secondly, in his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus clarified that did not come to alter, modify, abolish or abrogate Jewish law. Therefore, the opinions of Jesus and the opinions in Christianity are simply not the same. If you want to know what Jesus would have said, you will need to ask the question to a religious scholar in Jewish law. If you want to know what Christians would think, there will be as many answers as there Christians. It is important to emphasize that Christians generally do not think like Jesus did. Again, Christianity is not a formal system and is therefore not suitable to answer jurisprudential questions. — alcontali

You’re being pedantic. It is clear from the Gospels what were the words of Jesus and what were the words of the authors. What did Jesus say? Who better reflects this?

You’re getting into some sort of pedagogical pedantry that is besides the point and is a total waste of our time.

Is there not just the slightest chance that you are engaging in anachronism here? — Virgo Avalytikh

I assume I’m much richer than the rich man that Jesus told to give up his possessions. I’m sure he didn’t have indoor plumbing. Lol

I’m bored of you. You make me yawn and wish I didn’t have to waste so much time on you.

You’re not too wealthy to get into Heaven, Virgo. You don’t have to give up your wealth, and Jesus loves you. Does that help? Feel better? Or have I sowed doubts now?

I assume I’m much richer than the rich man that Jesus told to give up his possessions. I’m sure he didn’t have indoor plumbing. Lol — Noah Te Stroete

That's right, and the beggar to whom I give a coin is richer than the beggar who has no coin. So I suppose the coined beggar is now 'rich', and thereby barred from salvation by Jesus's own words. Unless, of course, we contrive an arbitrary and anachronistic wealth-threshold totally unknown to Jesus, with no philosophical justification.

You’re being pedantic. It is clear from the Gospels what were the words of Jesus and what were the words of the authors. What did Jesus say? Who better reflects this? You’re getting into some sort of pedagogical pedantry that is besides the point and is a total waste of our time. — Noah Te Stroete

You want to derive theorems, i.e. deductive conclusions, from the words in the Gospels. It is obvious that the theory on deduction, i.e. proof theory, is very, very relevant in this context.

I am not being pedantic.
I insist on the soundness of the formalisms to be used.

That is the essence of what you are supposed to learn from mathematics, i.e. the very basics:

If your procedure is flawed, then your answer will be too.

Furthermore, this is exactly the problem that Martin Luther raised at his trial: Please, use a sound procedure. The answer of the Church to his request was: That cannot be done, because the Bible is merely an arsenal of deceptive arguments.

Never mind. Jesus doesn’t love you.

Jesus literally said that it is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Hence, wealthy people don’t get into Heaven. They must give up their wealth and follow Jesus. — Noah Te Stroete

Wealth is a relative term. There is no such point in the Bible or anywhere else where it is decided NON-ARBITRARILY who is wealthy and who is poor.

Therefore Bill Gates can get to heaven, if, in Heaven's books, Jesus' books, wealth starts at 300 trillion dollars in the possession of one person.

This is fantasy, of course, but so is the claim that there are poor and rich in this world. Everyone has wealth, to different degrees and to different amounts, but what constitutes wealth for the purposes of Heaven or for the purposes of getting into Heaven has no indication given in the Bible or anywhere else.

There, Noah Te Stroete, you can hurtle insults at me for destroying your argument and your point again.

Nope. Analogies are inductive. Comparing the natives to the Pilgrims to the words of Jesus is not deductive.

We are mostly all wealthy as you said.

Secondly, in his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus clarified that did not come to alter, modify, abolish or abrogate Jewish law. — alcontali

"Blessed are the Cheesemakers for theirs is the inheritance of the Earth."

^That actually applies to all manufacturers of dairy products.

I would say that the native americans were less christian, despite following *most* christian morals more closely than the christians, because of what and how they worshipped. I do not believe that values cause religion nor does religion cause values the native americans were just kind to strangers.

My point is that whether we are wealthy or not judging by our own best judgment, we have no knowledge what amount of wealth disqualifies a person from entering into heaven.

Read the gooddamned post I wrote.

Furthermore, I have yet to meet someone in this society who has repented. If Jesus is coming back, he will most likely condemn us all. You and Virgo are acting more like proud, boastful, sinful Satanists than followers of Christ. I admitted I would not be saved as I have not turned from sin. But I score points for humility! :razz:

You really are a psychopathic asshole, aren’t you.

Furthermore, I have yet to meet someone in this society who has repented. — Noah Te Stroete

Nice point, but it's irrelevant to the topic of "wealth." Your escape route is blocked.

Yes, in your mind, in which

"Logical reasoning that destorys Noah Te Stroete's arguments" is equivalent to "psychopathic asshole".

Nowhere else is this more clearly defined, than in your mind. And nowhere else is it defined this way, but in your mind.

The world’s GDP is something like $27 trillion I think. No one but the impoverished are getting into heaven given they have turned from their sins. This is clearly a Satanic planet. Alcontali, Virgo, and you care more about scoring ego points than answering the OP directly. That is truly sinful.

Edit: Just looked it up and the world GDP is actually $80 trillion. I think I was quoting the USA.

Nope. Analogies are inductive. Comparing the natives to the Pilgrims to the words of Jesus is not deductive. — Noah Te Stroete

Concerning the epistemic principles of jurisprudence, I can see that there is also a debate in the usul al-figh ("epistemology of jurisprudence") concerning qiyas ("analogies"):

Among Sunni traditions, there is still a range of attitudes regarding the validity of analogy as a method of jurisprudence. Imam Bukhari, Ahmad bin Hanbal, and Dawud al-Zahiri for example, rejected the use of analogical reason outright, arguing that to rely on personal opinion in law-making would mean that each individual would ultimately form their own subjective conclusions.[11][5][12] Bernard G. Weiss, one of today's foremost experts on Islamic law and philosophy, explains that while analogical reason was accepted as a fourth source of law by later generations, its validity was not a foregone conclusion among earlier Muslim jurists.[13] Thus, while its status as a fourth source of law was accepted by the majority of later and modern Muslim jurists, this was not the case at the inception of Muslim jurisprudence as a field. — Wikipedia on the epistemology of Islamic jurisprudence

Hence, analogies are a bit controversial.

They can easily damage the provability of a religious advisory. In my impression, they have probably no place in a serious formal system. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, a legitimate advisory must be produced by deductive inference only.

Well, have at it then. Do you think Allah is proud of you for your proud displays?

I live near a tribe that once attacked neighboring tribes so as to make slaves of their women and children.

Is your suggestion that self-professed Christians do not engage in charity work?

In any case, although Christians are called to give alms, that is not what makes one a Christian. What makes one a Christian is not the observance of a particular ethic (the Native Americans did not even identify themselves as Christians), but being in a particular relationship to the risen Christ, one of faith. I am speaking biblically here. Certainly, faith without works is dead, as James says in his epistle, but this is a comment about the nature of an authentic, saving faith.

In any case, there does seem to be a leap being made. Why should living in a (partially) capitalistic, materialistic, or wealthy society be in tension with a Christian ethic? It is not money, after all, but the love of money which is the root of all evil. I'm not exactly sure what the argument is supposed to be here.

There are all sorts of ways in which the non-capitalistic elements of (the way government coercively invades) society are in tension with a Christian ethic. The welfare state, for one, gives rise to the worst kind of atomised individualism, where 'alms' (taxes) are 'given' (confiscated), not in such a way that is motivated by helping those who need it most in the way that they most need it, but in such a way that creates a class of permanent dependants, and exempts the tax-payer from any further charitable action. 'I support these insitutions with my taxes,' they will say, 'I have already done my part'. Charity has to remain charity, and that is why capitalism has to remain capitalism. — Virgo Avalytikh

After re-reading this post I must admit that you did try to answer the OP as honestly as you could. I apologize for my agitation.

Regarding your points on what it means to be Christian and whether it is compatible with a wealthy materialistic consumer society driven by profits for the owner class, well I couldn't disagree more fervently. I see how you voted and I acknowledge it. I just don’t see things that way, and to me this society couldn’t be more at odds with Jesus’ teachings and example.

I will leave it at that.

Yawn