Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

buying and selling

Hi Agua. Seems we are posting at the same time again. Thanks for looking at that list I presented.

If we take this verse as you suggest it would mean we should not own anything. Is this what you are implying?

What about taking it as Jesus suggests? It's pretty clear.

Jesus was gathering his disciples who were to be full time ministers. Some are called to this position but not everyone is. All Christians are ministers and followers of/for Christ and many do this while maintaining their usual working life.

You've said that not all Christians are called to be disciples. You've said that Christians and ministers are the same thing.

So, what is the difference between a Christian and a disciple?
ACTS 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Same as above. Are you suggesting everyone should be a full time missionary?

Are you suggesting they should not?

These people shared their possessions but what makes you think they ceased working?

No, actually I've said quite the opposite several times. It's about who we work for. That's been the whole point in all of my posts. Really, agua. God or money. In either case we must work. Work for love or work for money.

Hopefully the point is clear now. Work for love.

Jesus was not telling people to stop working but that the most important thing in life is believing in Him. The following verses clear this up

Joh 6:28-29 NKJV Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" (29) Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

Oh dear, here it is again. I never said people should stop working, and I never said Jesus told people to stop working, so why are you saying I said it?

If you believe Jesus, you will do what he said. If I tell you there is a bomb in the room, you show your belief by running out of the room. You won't sit there trying to explain to me that what I really mean is that I must not put my health before God.

Jesus told the disciples they would be provided for while ministering. They would actually be "paid" for their deeds by people who benefited. Compare ...

No, there is nothing about payment in any of these verses. It's about sharing, and that is obvious, agua. That you keep relating all of these verses back to money when there is no mention of money at all shows what appears to be a fairly deep bias.

If it was just about being paid, why would Jesus bother to send them out without anything? Why would he bother to ask them if the lacked anything? Why would he bother calling them to travel around with him in the first place? He would just hook them up with nice paying jobs so they could give the money to him to feed orphans or whatever.

Seriously, you don't need faith to get a job working for money. You just make phone calls and fill out applications, like any atheist in the world does.

Can't you see that you are deliberately overlooking what these verses are communicating?

This is showing how ministers for God will/should be paid for their labours. Are you suggesting it means something else?

Again, there is nothing in the verse, or even in the context, suggesting payment for services. Paul was trying to teach these young Christians about SHARING
 
I never said it is, so why are you saying it isn't? It may be a case of protesting too much; just say'n..

But, at least now you are saying that the verses in question (i.e. matthew 6) are talking about money, but that Jesus was talking about the love of money as opposed to working to get more of it.

You said .
.but which actually includes money and all the things money can buy: mammon.
Mammon is avarice or the inordinate desire for money/material things.
Well, we show who we love by who we give our time to. That's the point of working for two masters, and how we will hate one or the other. Look at it, agua; he said we will hate one of the two. Which one do you hate?
I hate the love of wealth(mammon) but hating money would mean I could not provide for my family. Do you provide for your family?

Of course, the obvious question then becomes, why spend your time working for what you hate? Because you are scared of what will happen if you don't?
Once again you have the meaning of mammon wrong. Tell me how you will provide for your family if you will not accept payment for work.

1Ti 5:8 NKJV But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

This really does look like a bias, agua, and it's not reasonable. You are suggesting that food and clothing are not needs and it's just, weird that you would do that.
I haven't suggested food and clothing aren't needs at all.

Yeah, and he gave working for money as an example of how it is wrong. Our loyalty and trust in one master shows our contempt for the other. They are expressed as total opposites, and not as the "one is a bit less than the other" teaching you are presenting here.
Can you give the definition of mammon. I think you misunderstand the verse.

What you are suggesting is that the pursuit of mammon (i.e. the other master) IS okay as long as it is "below" God, but you give no example or explanation to show what "below" actually means in practical terms, and how it is consistent with what Jesus said.
I am suggesting you are confusing mammon with money.

G3126
μαμμωνᾶς
mammōnas
mam-mo-nas'
Of Chaldee origin (confidence, that is, figuratively wealth, personified); mammonas, that is, avarice (deified): - mammon.


Here is what Jesus said about it:
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

"hate one/love the other". "hold to one/despise the other". "God or Mammon" (money/wealth/material things).
Hating wealth/excess of money does not mean hating money. That is like suggesting hating gluttony means hating food.
Cheating, hating, despising, whatever. The spirit is the same and the bottom line is still "God or money".
You are confused about the definition of mammon. Check it out.
Of course, God can take care of a family just as well as he can take care of a single person. The problem here, I think, is that you are still assuming that "provide" MUST be money.
Tell me how you will provide for your family as Paul taught?

So, why did Jesus tell us to consider the birds of the air and the flowers of the field? Because they don't work for money, and yet God still cares for them.

Of course it's about money.
A worker receives a wage and uses this to provide food/shelter etc. Jesus told us not to worry about these things which doesn't mean not to work. Money is not mammon.
This is very similar to the verse "is any man does not work, then he should not eat".

This one is often also used against the idea of working for love as opposed to working for money.

However, neither verse talks about working for or providing with money. They just say the obvious; don't be lazy. Since you quoted it THREE times, agua, I should probably explain what it is most likely talking about.
Ok. Tell me how Christians should pay for their shelter?
The early church which Paul was addressing in these letters was a communal church (see the list I posted re:acts). They were living together and sharing all things common, like the disciples did with Jesus and they were preaching a message of love and servitude.

Almost certainly they had people coming into the church who just wanted a free ride or just plain lazy people. Whether it was someone sitting around all day waiting for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, or a husband/wife leaving it to the other members of the chruch to look after their childrens health, education, behavior, etc some practical ground rules needed to be addressed.

That's what "provide for your own family" and "if you don't work you can't eat" means in the context of the letters Paul wrote.

But, EVEN IF Paul came straight out and told the church members to get jobs working for money, that would still NOT change what Jesus said.
It doesn't matter which community you belong to people need to work to provide for themselves. Whether that work produces the goods or the money to purchase them it is the same thing. How will you provide food and shelter for your family?

Sure, and Satan offered Jesus the whole world to do with as he pleased. He could have changed laws and used his fabulous wealth to do lots of charitable deeds.

In fact, the example works even if we take satan out of the picture. Jesus could have been born as the most powerful, rich, and influential king in the history of the world. He could have brought the Kingdom of Heaven to Earth easily using those resources (as you are suggesting in your example).
Which example ? I believe mammon is evil. Working for wages/goods is necessary and has been since the fall.

BUT he didn't do it that way. Instead, he lived like a poor beggar, sometimes without even a place to lay his head. Whatever carpentry business he may have had, he quit to go out preaching the gospel full time.

This behavior is NOT consistent with the example you just gave, about how Christians show their faith in God by working for the other master so they can donate to the poor. It's not what he did, it's not what he taught, and it's not what his disciples did.
A Christian who works for wages is not serving "the other master".
Check the meaning of mammon and end this confusion.

I am suggesting that being a Christian means doing what Jesus said to do.
Jesus said not to love money/material things. Working to provide for family and others is necessary and godly. Tell me how you suggest a man should provide for his family without being paid?
 
MLP I suggest you start another thread about Christians working for money. Lets' see what others think.
 
why start another thread when this one is doing just fine? It is called "buying and selling".

Wikipedia says:
Mammon is a term that was used to describe greed, avarice, and unjust worldly gain in Biblical literature. It was personified as a false God in the New Testament.{Mt.6.24; Lk.16.13} The term is often used to refer to excessive materialism or greed as a negative influence.

You said:
Mammon is avarice or the inordinate desire for money/material things.

I said:
Jesus said we cannot work for God and mammon (money and the things money can buy) at the same time.

All three are consistent, agua. It's only you arguing a difference. I suppose you are getting stuck on the idea that mammon is the "inordinate" or "unjust" work for money.

But when you look at what Jesus said, it becomes clear that he's not talking about "unjust" gain. He's talking about who we serve, God or money. But it's not just those verses from Matthew that we are dealing with. I gave you a big list, and for each example you had some reason why it was all talking about how it IS okay to work for money or why they doesn't apply to Christians in general or why I am just confused. There was always some reason for why you couldn't just read it as it was written.

If it was just one or two verses I could be a bit more understanding of your skepticism, but not 20.

I also feel you may be being a bit dishonest by claiming some verses teach that we should work for money, as in the Paul verses about laziness. If it was just that you were confused or misremembered I could understand, but even after I clarified that those verses do not mention working for money, either in the verse itself or the context you carry on as though it is a fact that they do. That is not honest discussion.

You also continue to misrepresent me by claiming I am saying that we should not work. I clarified that point several times, and yet you persist. Why? It sounds like a way of either just ignoring what I am actually saying, or an attempt to discredit the point by pretending that I am saying something a bit similar, but still fundamentally different.
 
Last edited:
why start another thread when this one is doing just fine? It is called "buying and selling".

Wikipedia says:
Mammon is a term that was used to describe greed, avarice, and unjust worldly gain in Biblical literature. It was personified as a false God in the New Testament.{Mt.6.24; Lk.16.13} The term is often used to refer to excessive materialism or greed as a negative influence.

You said:
Mammon is avarice or the inordinate desire for money/material things.

I said:
Jesus said we cannot work for God and mammon (money and the things money can buy) at the same time.

All three are consistent, agua. It's only you arguing a difference. I suppose you are getting stuck on the idea that mammon is the "inordinate" or "unjust" work for money.

We agree on the definition of mammon yet you suggest Jesus said we can't work for money. You are incorrectly using "money" as a defintion of "mammon".

Mat 6:24 NKJV "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

The definition of mammon is clear. Insert the definition of "mammon" into the verse and not "money".

But when you look at what Jesus said, it becomes clear that he's not talking about "unjust" gain. He's talking about who we serve, God or money. But it's not just those verses from Matthew that we are dealing with. I gave you a big list, and for each example you had some reason why it was all talking about how it IS okay to work for money or why they doesn't apply to Christians in general or why I am just confused. There was always some reason for why you couldn't just read it as it was written.
Your point is based on twisting the definition of mammon. Let's place the definition of mammon into the verse from the Wiki source you provided.

Mat 6:24 NKJV "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and "excessive materialism or greed".
If it was just one or two verses I could be a bit more understanding of your skepticism, but not 20.

I also feel you may be being a bit dishonest by claiming some verses teach that we should work for money, as in the Paul verses about laziness. If it was just that you were confused or misremembered I could understand, but even after I clarified that those verses do not mention working for money, either in the verse itself or the context you carry on as though it is a fact that they do. That is not honest discussion.
Ok let's look at Paul's words again.

1Ti 5:8 NKJV But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

How do you provide for your family ?

You also continue to misrepresent me by claiming I am saying that we should not work. I clarified that point several times, and yet you persist. Why? It sounds like a way of either just ignoring what I am actually saying, or an attempt to discredit the point by pretending that I am saying something a bit similar, but still fundamentally different.
My claim is that Christians need to work to provide for their family and others who depend on them. I am not accepting your understanding of scriptures to support your claim. You are operating from conformation bias regardless of correct definitions.

Tell me how you would pay for food and shelter for your family?

Jesus is not saying we shouldn't work for money. He is teaching greed/avarice or mammon is evil. Once again gluttony does not make food evil in the same way that mammon does not make money evil.

1Ti 5:18 NKJV For the Scripture says, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE AN OX WHILE IT TREADS OUT THE GRAIN," and, "THE LABORER IS WORTHY OF HIS WAGES."

Whether theses wages were money or goods they are still payment for work/good deeds.
 
We agree on the definition of mammon yet you suggest Jesus said we can't work for money.

The definition includes "worldly gain". That is working for money. This becomes especially clear when Jesus tells us to consider the Birds of the air and the flowers of the field, because they do no work [for money] and yet God feeds them.

It is also clear that he is talking about working for money when he says that we should not let worry about food and clothing stop us from stepping out in faith and giving our time to work for love, as opposed to money. How do we get food and clothing? We buy it. And what do we buy it with? Money. It's obvious.

Of course, money itself is not evil and I never said it was. But working to get MORE of it is NOT what the Kingdom of Heaven is about. That's why Jesus said that God will provide the thins he knows we need if we will just have the faith to do it his way.

I hope that point is clear now. I am not suggesting that money in itself is somehow evil, but it is the TIME we give to making more of it that is evil, because that time belongs to God and we should be using it to promote his kingdom.

Also, the idea of ONLY helping someone if they agree to give us something in return is not love. I don't think it is totally black and white, but the general principle is there. Work for God's kingdom, not the systems of the world.

In the Lords prayer, Jesus told us to say "Thy will be done on Earth, as it is in Heaven", but in Heaven they don't work for money. They just work out of love. That's how it should be for us here on Earth, too, as witnesses of the Kingdom of Heaven.

There is no witness in giving our lives to working for money because that is what anyone in the world does. It takes no faith. People cannot see any significant difference between them and ourselves if we do what they do. Sure, we have "religion" but the world's been seeing religion for thousands of years and it's not changed anything.

What they need to see is the Kingdom of Heaven. That's what working for love is all about.
 
Communication between agua and me has broken down to the point that I feel it would be fairly meaningless to continue with direct responses to him. I addressed some concerns I had about his communication with me which he chose to ignore so that's why I'm taking this approach now.

However, I would like to address some of his comment in general for the benefit of anyone who may be reading this thread.

Also note, I will refer to agua in my comments because it his his comments I am addressing, but I don't feel this is an issue which is particular to agua. It just happens that he is the one responding to my posts at the moment.

I think agua's responses show that, far from some simplistic teaching about who we love more, Jesus was addressing and extremely sensitive issue; one that touches the core of our faith.

It has become quite apparent that agua is not prepared to hear something from Jesus which goes against his understanding of how the world works, (i.e. money makes the world go round and if you want to take care of yourself or your family you must work for money).

Because he cannot imagine a world where people work for God and one another out of love, and a God who can take care of our needs (like Jesus said), he is going to great lengths to explain that the teaching is not really about working for love at all, but just an ideal in our hearts.

In other words "seek first the Kingdom of Heaven" has no practical application in
real life, according to agua's interpretation. It is just a belief in the heart.

Here is an example:

Your point is based on twisting the definition of mammon. Let's place the definition of mammon into the verse from the Wiki source you provided.

Mat 6:24 NKJV "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and "excessive materialism or greed".

The key word here, which agua uses to refute the idea that Jesus is talking about who we work for, is "excessive".

It's a loop-hole, because he can always claim, later, that he only worked for materialism and greed, and NOT "excessive" materialism and greed.

"Excessive" could mean a hundred different things to a hundred different people, and that is why it is a loop-hole, or a convenient doctrine, to add that word into the verse. The entire teaching becomes meaningless because it is the nature of "avarice" or a "desire for money", as agua himself puts it, to just naturally assume that our desire is not "excessive".

We tell ourselves that we are not swimming in pools of diamonds or rubbing hundred dollar bills all over our bodies. We are not buying fancy cars or private jets. We are not taking luxury vacations around the world etc...

We are just working for food and clothing, the most basic necessities of life. That's not "excessive" is it?

But then again, it was food and clothing that Jesus specifically mention in his teaching against working for money, several times.

He knew people would naturally be concerned about how they would get these things if they chose to abandon their only visible, reliable means of support (i.e. working for money). That's why he told us NOT to let a fear of these things stop us from hearing what he had to say about working for the Kingdom of Heaven.
 
The definition includes "worldly gain".

Yes the definition includes "worldy gain" but you are cherry picking parts of it to suit your ideology. Here is the definition you posted.

Wikipedia says:
Mammon is a term that was used to describe greed, avarice, and unjust worldly gain in Biblical literature. It was personified as a false God in the New Testament.{Mt.6.24; Lk.16.13} The term is often used to refer to excessive materialism or greed as a negative influence.

"unjust worldly gain" is the correct meaning.
That is working for money. This becomes especially clear when Jesus tells us to consider the Birds of the air and the flowers of the field, because they do no work [for money] and yet God feeds them.
Jesus said nothing about working for money. This is a particular ideology you have decided is good. It's ok to have personal preferences on how we live our life but it's not ok to twist the meaning of scripture in an attempt to make it appear biblically commanded. Jesus said not to worry(be anxious) about our needs but did not say we shouldn't work for wages.

God provides the food for the birds but they still work for it. Whether we plant and grow our own food or work for wages to buy it is no different.

It is also clear that he is talking about working for money when he says that we should not let worry about food and clothing stop us from stepping out in faith and giving our time to work for love, as opposed to money. How do we get food and clothing? We buy it. And what do we buy it with? Money. It's obvious.
When Jesus spoke of our worry for food and clothing He was addressing the fact that people become consumed with worldly things and place them above Heavenly. It has absolutely nothing to do with work or wages.

Show me where Jesus said... "that we should not let worry about food and clothing stop us from stepping out in faith and giving our time to work for love, as opposed to money."
You are confusing Jesus command to be generous and charitable with our working life. We are required to do both.
<table class="tborder" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="panelsurround" align="center">
</td></tr></tbody></table>
Of course, money itself is not evil and I never said it was. But working to get MORE of it is NOT what the Kingdom of Heaven is about. That's why Jesus said that God will provide the thins he knows we need if we will just have the faith to do it his way.
Jesus told us not to worry( be anxious) about material things. This has nothing to do with working to provide for our needs.

How do you provide for your family. I have asked this question several times but you haven't answered.
I hope that point is clear now. I am not suggesting that money in itself is somehow evil, but it is the TIME we give to making more of it that is evil, because that time belongs to God and we should be using it to promote his kingdom.
You have made your ideology clear but it isn't biblical. I have no objection to you living as you believe. Jesus didn't teach this though and, as we know, if we do not provide for our family we are considered worse than unbelievers.

Also, the idea of ONLY helping someone if they agree to give us something in return is not love. I don't think it is totally black and white, but the general principle is there. Work for God's kingdom, not the systems of the world.
Working for wages is a different concept to charity or "helping someone". Wages are paid in return for services rendered and Jesus told us even His disciples were "worthy of their wages". Wages are payment for services.

We are working for God's Kingdom when we conduct ourselves in a godly manner at our jobs by being honest,diligent, and hard working. We are to work "as if for the Lord".
In the Lords prayer, Jesus told us to say "Thy will be done on Earth, as it is in Heaven", but in Heaven they don't work for money. They just work out of love. That's how it should be for us here on Earth, too, as witnesses of the Kingdom of Heaven.
I don't have any scriptures about work in Heaven. During the Millennial reign we are told people will receive full reward for their labours though. This is equivalent to wages imo. There is no instruction from Jesus to not work for money while we are here on Earth. During His time here He would have taught this if it was what He wanted.
There is no witness in giving our lives to working for money because that is what anyone in the world does. It takes no faith. People cannot see any significant difference between them and ourselves if we do what they do. Sure, we have "religion" but the world's been seeing religion for thousands of years and it's not changed anything.

What they need to see is the Kingdom of Heaven. That's what working for love is all about.
Ok. Now tell me how the ~ 2 billion ( supposed ) Christians on Earth atm will provide for their families if they do not receive wages.

Working to provide for needs is biblically required and you are confusing our needs with greed. Our witness is also provided in how we apply, and conduct, ourselves while earning our wages.
 
Last edited:
I will still reply to you since are still referring to me if that's ok. If you wish to separate our debate then address the issue without using names.

....
Because he cannot imagine a world where people work for God and one another out of love, and a God who can take care of our needs (like Jesus said), he is going to great lengths to explain that the teaching is not really about working for love at all, but just an ideal in our hearts.

You are very passionate about this plan to end working for wages. Could you please outline how this system will provide for the needs of all believers on Earth today. Please be specific.
In other words "seek first the Kingdom of Heaven" has no practical application in
real life, according to agua's interpretation. It is just a belief in the heart.
Seeking first God's Kingdom means placing your priorities on godly matters first. Everything we do in life should be under girded by godly principles and this includes our working life.
Here is an example:

The key word here, which agua uses to refute the idea that Jesus is talking about who we work for, is "excessive".

It's a loop-hole, because he can always claim, later, that he only worked for materialism and greed, and NOT "excessive" materialism and greed.

"Excessive" could mean a hundred different things to a hundred different people, and that is why it is a loop-hole, or a convenient doctrine, to add that word into the verse. The entire teaching becomes meaningless because it is the nature of "avarice" or a "desire for money", as agua himself puts it, to just naturally assume that our desire is not "excessive".
We are not to work for materialism or greed, excessive or not. Materialism is considered the love of objects and greed is an ungenerous nature. God knows whether we have an inordinate desire for wealth/money and this is the issue Jesus addressed. People who earn wages, and are able, should be generous and charitable with their money.

We tell ourselves that we are not swimming in pools of diamonds or rubbing hundred dollar bills all over our bodies. We are not buying fancy cars or private jets. We are not taking luxury vacations around the world etc...

We are just working for food and clothing, the most basic necessities of life. That's not "excessive" is it?
We are communicating via an "excessive" method. Should we write letters instead? : p
Greed is something that every Christian needs to on guard against and it isn't only in terms of money. I agree this is a very important issue today.
But then again, it was food and clothing that Jesus specifically mention in his teaching against working for money, several times.
Once again Jesus made no mention of working for money. The issue is where our desires (heart) is. Jesus said we can not "serve" or "love" both God and mammon. A man who works for wages to provide for his family isn't "serving" or "loving" money. It is possible for this to happen though.
He knew people would naturally be concerned about how they would get these things if they chose to abandon their only visible, reliable means of support (i.e. working for money). That's why he told us NOT to let a fear of these things stop us from hearing what he had to say about working for the Kingdom of Heaven.
Jesus wanted people to have their priorities and hearts in the right place. We need to have God as our anchor in everything we do. He wasn't talking about working for money.
 
Jesus said not to worry(be anxious) about our needs but did not say we shouldn't work for wages.

But, it is working for wages that most people associate with meeting the basic needs. In other words, you can't buy food and clothing without working to get money. It's obvious that "mammon" refers to money and the things money can buy.


God provides the food for the birds but they still work for it. Whether we plant and grow our own food or work for wages to buy it is no different.

MT 6:26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

Actually, Jesus made a point that they DON'T work, but God still takes care of them. By looking at other parts of Jesus' teachings we can see that Jesus wasn't teaching people to be lazy. He worked long and he worked hard, but he worked for love.

Obviously, the "work" Jesus is referencing here refers to working for mammon (i.e. money and the things money can buy). it makes no sense otherwise.

I don't have any scriptures about work in Heaven. During the Millennial reign we are told people will receive full reward for their labours though. This is equivalent to wages imo.

Here is another example of a convenient doctrine. I pointed out that Jesus told us to pray that God's will be done here on Earth as it is in Heaven and that the values of the Kingdom of Heaven don't hinge on other people giving us something first before we will help them.

It seems, based on this response,though, we are to believe that there is no difference between the values of the Kingdom of Heaven and the values of this world. Apparently we are meant to believe that forcing someone to pay us before we agree to help them is what Heaven is all about. How convenient.

Our witness is also provided in how we apply, and conduct, ourselves while earning our wages.

Another convenient doctrine. There are plenty of hard working, decent, loyal, honest, smart, caring, atheists out there. Other than religious jargon which people can hear anywhere, what "witness" is being suggesting here that is different to what any atheist can also apply?

But, what an atheist will NOT do is to work for love the way Jesus and his followers did. When we step out from under the complacent security of the systems of man we show that our faith is real, and not just a "god bless you" at some point during the busy work day.

Could you please outline how this system will provide for the needs of all believers on Earth today. Please be specific.

It's amazing what happens when people just start sharing with each other.

Everything we do in life should be under girded by godly principles and this includes our working life.

Sure, and Jesus said to the people, "do what the pharisees say, but don't do what they do".

We are not to work for materialism or greed, excessive or not.

And yet, my point about the word "excessive" being used as a loop-hole is still valid. Jesus didn't use that word. In fact he talked about food and clothing; hardly excessive. So why is the word being brought up now to "clarify" what Jesus said? Why not just look at what Jesus said and believe him?
 
Actually, Jesus made a point that they DON'T work, but God still takes care of them. By looking at other parts of Jesus' teachings we can see that Jesus wasn't teaching people to be lazy. He worked long and he worked hard, but he worked for love.

That reminds of a another comment I heard in another christian forum, the poster said that animals don't have minds. And whether Jesus said that or that animals don't work, well, that is a question one will have to answer for themself, but bugs do not crawl up to a bird and surrender, the bird has to put forth effort to obtain their meal. Who builds the bird's next? Who boroughts the den for the fox? These are all earthly things that a person can see for themself, they work, they put labor into their own exsistence, for the Spirit of God is in the blood of the flesh, albeit there are different kinds of flesh. Celestial, terrestial, beast and fowl, but it is the same Spirit which gives them all life.

I guess if those who He taught bought the truth as Proverbs says, then they wouldn't have gave their money to the foxes. (Matthew 8:20)
 
Last edited:
But, it is working for wages that most people associate with meeting the basic needs. In other words, you can't buy food and clothing without working to get money. It's obvious that "mammon" refers to money and the things money can buy.



Actually, Jesus made a point that they DON'T work, but God still takes care of them. By looking at other parts of Jesus' teachings we can see that Jesus wasn't teaching people to be lazy. He worked long and he worked hard, but he worked for love.

God provides everything the birds require on Earth in the same way He does for us. We have plentiful sources of food/materials etc to not be worried for them. This has nothing to do with working for them though because even birds must gather what God has provided. Same with us.
Obviously, the "work" Jesus is referencing here refers to working for mammon (i.e. money and the things money can buy). it makes no sense otherwise.
Here is another example of a convenient doctrine. I pointed out that Jesus told us to pray that God's will be done here on Earth as it is in Heaven and that the values of the Kingdom of Heaven don't hinge on other people giving us something first before we will help them.
Helping people who are in need is also a command from Jesus. This has no bearing on being employed for wages. When we work for wages we are paid according to our labours and in similar fashion Jesus said " the worker is worthy of his wages" and " do not muzzle an ox while he threshes out the grain". The principal is that we work and get paid for services. This is why a Pastor is supported by his church group.

It seems, based on this response,though, we are to believe that there is no difference between the values of the Kingdom of Heaven and the values of this world. Apparently we are meant to believe that forcing someone to pay us before we agree to help them is what Heaven is all about. How convenient.
When a person enters employment there is a negotiated price put on the services rendered. Working for wages is not a charity situation and you are attempting to meld them to suit your conformation bias. James told us that an employer should be just in paying the correct wages to employees and that Jesus will hear the workers plea.

Jas 5:4 NKJV Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabbath.

Another convenient doctrine. There are plenty of hard working, decent, loyal, honest, smart, caring, atheists out there. Other than religious jargon which people can hear anywhere, what "witness" is being suggesting here that is different to what any atheist can also apply?
Yes there are many hard working, decent, loyal, honest, smart, caring, atheists. These are qualities not confined to Christians. The Christian credits God for their goodness though. An employee values a good worker and this is usually reflected in the wages paid which is another reason an atheist will be diligent. A Christian is required to be diligent at all times, regardless of the situation, so that unbelievers will see this and praise God.
But, what an atheist will NOT do is to work for love the way Jesus and his followers did. When we step out from under the complacent security of the systems of man we show that our faith is real, and not just a "god bless you" at some point during the busy work day.
There are many atheists who do volunteer work the same as Christians. Yes and believe it or not many atheists are generous and not greedy. The difference is the Christians is labouring "as if for the Lord" and his actions reflect upon God.
It's amazing what happens when people just start sharing with each other.
For people to be able to share their belongings they need to be able to produce/buy them. Food and clothing is perishable and needs replenishing on a daily/weekly etc basis. To supply these goods we can either make/grow them with our own hands or work for wages and buy them. The monetary system makes it possible to work for an apple farmer and buy steak from a rancher. eg.

How do you pay for the internet you use?

Sure, and Jesus said to the people, "do what the pharisees say, but don't do what they do".

And yet, my point about the word "excessive" being used as a loop-hole is still valid. Jesus didn't use that word. In fact he talked about food and clothing; hardly excessive. So why is the word being brought up now to "clarify" what Jesus said? Why not just look at what Jesus said and believe him?
Jesus used the word "mammon" which we have accepted the Wiki definition.

Wikipedia says:
Mammon is a term that was used to describe greed, avarice, and unjust worldly gain in Biblical literature. It was personified as a false God in the New Testament.{Mt.6.24; Lk.16.13} The term is often used to refer to excessive materialism or greed as a negative influence.

Jesus said we should not "love" or "serve" mammon. Working for wages is neither. What we do with the proceeds of our labours can determine our intent and Christians are commanded to be generous and help the needy as well as provide for their families. Money earned and used in accordance with God's teaching isn't mammon.
 
Last edited:
Working for wages is not a charity situation.

Of course, this is what I've been saying all along. The systems of man (i.e forcing people to pay us for our help) is totally different to the Kingdom of Heaven (where we share our time, skills and resources with one another just because we want to).

People argue that we must work for money because it's the only way we can "provide" for ourselves. They say that if we don't work for money we could starve to death or freeze to death.

The bottom line of all of agua's arguguments here is "if we don't work for money, how will we pay the bills"? All that stuff about giving to charity or supporting pastors or whatever is just a smoke screen. The real issue is "paying the bills". In case anyone missed it, I'll post it again.

Working for wages is not a charity situation.


But, of course, that's exactly why Jesus said not to let worry about "paying the bills" stop us from stepping out in faith.

The worst part of this attitude, though, is that issues like charity and helping the poor really do become just another list of bills to pay for. Rather than adopting the LIFYSTYLE that Jesus taught, the majority of Christians today have come to support a totally different set of values where we pay other people to do the work of the ministry for us.

We tell ourselves that God needs our money because it's money that makes the world go round. It becomes a situation where it's not about trusting God at all or living the way he wants, but about "working for wages".

Agua says the difference between Christians who work for money and Atheists who work for money is that Christians give God the credit for the money they make. So what?

Jesus told the religious people of his day "this people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me". God isn't stupid. If you spend your time working to get more food and clothing (as opposed to working for love), like Jesus said not to, you're not going to trick him into seeing it differently by claiming that you did it all for him. In fact, that's likely to make him even more angry. You want to say that it's his fault that you ignored him?

For example, a person can go out and sleep around on the basis that it's all about bringing people to Christ through the act of love making. He could present some proof texts to support his claim (there was a very popular church who tried this already). He could even claim that the difference between him and people who commit adultery/fornication is that he gave the credit to God.

It's all just so many convenient doctrines.
 
I've just been reading some yahoo articles and found one about toys that kinda fits this topic, and which I thought was quite relevant.

An American invention, the Slinky was dreamed up by naval engineer Richard T. James, who hit upon the idea while working at a shipyard in Pittsburgh. Over 300 million have been sold in its 60-year history, earning James a fortune...which he abandoned in2 1960 when he went nuts and disappeared to join a Bolivian religious cult. But that's all beside the point.
What makes the author think James went nuts? Because he forsook his wealth or his family?

Is it really insanity to give up wealth? Well, according to the systems of man, yes. It is considered to be insanity to care less for money than one does for God.

But what did Jesus say? Luke 14:33 .

Out of curiosity, I googled James and found this article. My comments on the article will appear in bold.

-------------

Dear Cecil:
In a new book, Inventing the 20th Century: 100 Inventions That Shaped the World, I read that the inventor of the Slinky, Richard James, joined a cult in Bolivia to which he donated much of his profits. What cult? Do proceeds from sales of Slinkys still go to the cult?


— KenP, from the Straight Dope Message Board


Cecil replies:
What's your problem with cults,Ken?


Why, just this spring while writing a check I said to myself, this money is going to fund religious zealots bent on subverting everything I hold dear. But I mailed in my income tax anyway.


In any case, I don't know that we want to call Richard James's coreligionists a cult. Details about the group are scanty, and it's possible they were just an exceptionally enthusiastic bunch of Episcopalians. Besides, it's been more than 40 years since any Slinky money found its way into the organization's coffers.


[NOTE: we do NOT know what the beliefs of this "cult" really are. Everything about this group, so far, is based on what the common understanding of the word "cult" means. Generally speaking, it is a pejorative term meant instill a sense of fear or mistrust.]



During the 1950s, however, quite a bit did. Here's as much of the story as I could piece together, based on conversations with Richard's ex-wife, Betty, a remarkable woman who saved the Slinky company after her husband bailed.


[NOTE: Please remember that this entire article is based on what the WIFE has to say about it. It is ONE witness.]



It all started in 1943, when Richard, an engineer at a navy shipyard in Philadelphia, noticed a torsion spring fall off a table and wiggle when it hit the floor. In the metallurgical equivalent of Newton's apple, Richard recognized a toy waiting to be born.



Having succeeded in finding steel with the right combination of lightness and springiness — no small feat in wartime — he was ready to take his product to market by late 1945. Realizing that the key to selling the Slinky was showing it in action, he fabricated a display in which the toy walked down steps and persuaded the Philadelphia branch of Gimbel's department store to let him give demonstrations.



Shoppers went nuts, and in 90 minutes Richard's entire stock of 400 Slinkys had sold out. The thing was a hit at a toy fair the following spring and soon had become a national phenomenon.


By the 1950s Richard was pretty flush. He and Betty lived with their growing family on a 12-acre estate near the suburb of Bryn Mawr on Philadelphia's affluent Main Line. But he wasn't content and at some point got religion. Previous accounts have been vague on how this came about, and Betty herself doesn't have a lot of specifics.



[NOTE: The word "cult" raises A LOT of fear in the general public. In a sitution where there are very little specifics, why use such a strongly NEGATIVE word to describe someone who gave up his wealth for God? Could it be that forsaking wealth for God is seen as one of the most despicable things a person can do?

Please remember that the wife herself, the closest person to James at the time, had very little information to share about this religious group. Why is that? You wil read, a bit later, that James sent many letters to his estranged wife. How is it that she never bothered to listen to what her husband had to say about something significant enough to cause him to forsake his fortune?]



She doesn't know what religious organization Richard got hooked up with, only that it was an evangelical Christian sect that she termed a cult. Richard began consorting with what Betty considered dubious characters, made sizable financial contributions, and testified at revival meetings. She attended one and found it mortifying.


[NOTE: She doesn't know who they are, but she termed them a cult and dubious characters? Really? I don't know who 99.9 percent of the people on this forum are. That doesn't mean I can declare this forum to be a cult of dubious persons.

But wait! Could it be that betty's REAL problem is that James made "sizable contributions" to this group? Of course, anyone giving away their wealth as a response to faith in God MUST be part of a religious cult, even if we don't know what this supposed cult even teaches!!!]



I asked Betty what had gotten into her husband. She said Slinky sales were slumping in the mid-50s and that Richard, a charismatic man who had gotten used to being a big shot, liked the attention he got while confessing his sins.


[NOTE: He liked the attention. Remember this point from Betty, the wife who feels upset that James is forsaking the wealth that he acquired.]



Wondering what kind of sins we were talking about, I asked: "Did Richard have, ah, personal issues that led to his religious conversion?" Yes, Betty said. He'd been a philanderer. She'd found out about it, they'd had discussions of the sort that usually ensue, but she'd stayed with him for the sake of their six children.


[NOTE: Okay, so he apparently cheated on his wife. When he tried to confess his sin, as the Bible says we should do, she wasn't happy with that, either. She said he was just doing it for "attention". ]




Finally, in February 1960, Richard announced to Betty and their two eldest children that he was moving to Bolivia to work for his religious group. They could either sell the business or run it themselves; he was cutting all ties.


[NOTE: Remember what Betty said about this guy only confessing his sins for attention? Why would someone who only wants attention suddenly give up all of that attention so freely? It doesn't make sense.


A lucrative, multi-million dollar business and this guy was just giving it all up. He didn't even put up a fight about it. He said they could do whatever they wanted with it. Sounds very much like what Jesus told his followers to do, and very much like a wife wrapped too much up in the systems of man to care about her husbands faith.]




By July he was gone. What exactly he did in Bolivia, Betty doesn't know, although there's no reason to think it was anything along the lines of Jim Jones in Guyana — more like a mission, from the sound of it. At one point she heard he was printing religious tracts.

[NOTE: So she did know SOMETHING about what he was doing. He was printing religious tracts. That's what she knew about him BEFORE this interview took place, and yet, she still decided that it was worth testifying that he was pulled into a "cult"? Really? Because he printed religious tracts?

A woman smart enough to rescue a failing financial business on her own would be smart enough to realize that ALL religions print tracts. She was not honest in this interview. HER beef was that he gave MONEY to this group. Her beef was that he forsook all his wealth to follow his conscience. To someone who believes that we cannot live without money, that is insanity of the highest degree.]



To provide for her family, Betty decided to keep the Slinky business going, but it was on the verge of bankruptcy. Richard had diverted the company's resources to his religious interests and left millions of dollars in unpaid bills. Betty begged her creditors to be patient, and miraculously they all agreed. She wangled a TV advertising deal, moved the Slinky plant to her hometown of Hollidaysburg in central Pennsylvania, and slowly put the company back on its feet.


Every so often she got accusatory letters from Richard urging her to repent. At one point he asked that she leave the children and join him in Bolivia. She never replied. In 1974 she heard that he had died of a heart attack, and that was that.
Betty ran James Industries, as the Slinky company was officially known, for nearly four decades.


[NOTE: Accusatory letters to repent? Jesus himself said, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand". Here is a guy who forsook all his wealth to follow his conscience, based on what we know of the story, and yet his wife feels it is an accusation for him to ask her to do the same. Who has more authority in a situation where one person lets go of everything and the other person claims it is insanity to let go of everything? Who is more consistent with the values of the kingdom of Heaven?


Why is "forsake all you have" seen as an accusation? Jesus himself said the very same thing. Luke 14:33


Could it be that the love of money is at work here, in a very subtle way?]



In 1998, having produced close to 300 million Slinkys since the founding of the company, she sold out for a boatload of money to a Michigan company that promised to keep the Slinky plant and its 120-some jobs in Hollidaysburg. Your Slinky buck may have supported some dubious ventures prior to 1960, but it's been well spent since.
— Cecil Adams


[NOTE: Remember the parable of the rich man and lazarus? Here we have a millionaire who became a poor man in a 3rd world country because of his faith in God, and a very wealth woman who got everything she wanted because she believed her husband to be crazy.



How do you think God sees it?]
 
Last edited:
Of course, this is what I've been saying all along. The systems of man (i.e forcing people to pay us for our help) is totally different to the Kingdom of Heaven (where we share our time, skills and resources with one another just because we want to).

Employers have a product or service they wish to produce/provide on a scale larger than one man can do. They choose to hire workers for this purpose. It is illogical to think a worker is forcing an employer to pay for their service. Jesus hears the cries from workers who are not paid remember.

Jas 5:4 NKJV Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.

People argue that we must work for money because it's the only way we can "provide" for ourselves. They say that if we don't work for money we could starve to death or freeze to death.

The bottom line of all of agua's arguguments here is "if we don't work for money, how will we pay the bills"? All that stuff about giving to charity or supporting pastors or whatever is just a smoke screen. The real issue is "paying the bills". In case anyone missed it, I'll post it again.
We are told to provide for our families and if we do not we are considered "worse than unbelievers". How do you provide for your family?
Jesus condoned/instituted the payment of pastors/ministers and made it very clear that His disciples were "worthy of their wages". Paul reinforced Jesus teaching although he mostly forwent payment for his ministering and chose to work himself.

1Co 9:13-14 NKJV Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? (14) Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.

Paul sometimes chose to work as a tent maker .

Act 18:3 NKJV So, because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and worked; for by occupation they were tentmakers.

But, of course, that's exactly why Jesus said not to let worry about "paying the bills" stop us from stepping out in faith.

The worst part of this attitude, though, is that issues like charity and helping the poor really do become just another list of bills to pay for. Rather than adopting the LIFYSTYLE that Jesus taught, the majority of Christians today have come to support a totally different set of values where we pay other people to do the work of the ministry for us.
Paying God's workers was instituted initially through the tithe where the priests/Levites were paid because they were in full time service for God. This concept was reinforced by Jesus as shown above.
We tell ourselves that God needs our money because it's money that makes the world go round. It becomes a situation where it's not about trusting God at all or living the way he wants, but about "working for wages".
God instituted the payment of His ministers/priests and working for payment is seen throughout the scriptures. You are determined to enforce a non biblical command.

Tell me how you trust in God to provide for your needs. You still haven't answered the question of how you provide for your family and I am curious how you feed/cloth them and how you pay for your internet provider etc.

Feel free to give your testimony of this.
Agua says the difference between Christians who work for money and Atheists who work for money is that Christians give God the credit for the money they make. So what?
Who we give credit to is very important. When a Christian is being obedient he is representing God and giving witness to those who see.
This applies to everything we do including our words/attitudes.

Jesus told the religious people of his day "this people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me". God isn't stupid. If you spend your time working to get more food and clothing (as opposed to working for love), like Jesus said not to, you're not going to trick him into seeing it differently by claiming that you did it all for him. In fact, that's likely to make him even more angry. You want to say that it's his fault that you ignored him?
Many religious leaders of Jesus day were hypocrites because they talked a good game but went away and did the very things they taught not to do. They placed a higher priority on their appearances than God.

Tell me. You keep saying " If you spend your time working to get more food and clothing".
Are you inferring working for some food and clothing is ok?
For example, a person can go out and sleep around on the basis that it's all about bringing people to Christ through the act of love making. He could present some proof texts to support his claim (there was a very popular church who tried this already). He could even claim that the difference between him and people who commit adultery/fornication is that he gave the credit to God.

It's all just so many convenient doctrines.
Very poor analogy. Fornication and adultery are sin. Working for wages is a biblical concept which Jesus taught and your self decided ideal isn't.

I am still waiting on your answer to how you provide for your family?
 
If Adam and Eve were the only procreators, where did Cain's wife come from is a question long asked by many who have studied the Holy Scriptures.

Or why did God need to place a mark upon Cain lest anyone finding him should slay him? If there wasn't nobody but Adam and Eve.

If eye for eye, life for life, why didn't God, whose Word is the same yesterday, today and forever not slay Cain? Maybe because their might be a reason?

I think the Cain lineage are the tares in the parables of the wheat and the tares, that's why God kept them around.
 
Jesus hears the cries from workers who are not paid remember.

Jas 5:4 NKJV Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.
This is a case of seeing what you want to see. The subject of this verse is fraud and has nothing to do with working for money in the context that Jesus taught. Agua has been doing this with verses from Paul, too, where he states as fact that any time the word "work" is used, agua argues it is about working for money, and not working for love, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

I posted a long list of verses supporting work for love, but agua had a reason why each one either didn't matter to us or didn't mean what it was plainly teaching.

Jesus condoned/instituted the payment of pastors/ministers and made it very clear that His disciples were "worthy of their wages".

Again, a convenient doctrine. Jesus sent his disciples out into the world and specifically told them to take NOTHING for their journey except the clothes they were wearing. He told them to go everywhere preaching the gospel and to accept whatever help they are offered along the way, because the laborer is worthy of his hire.

God is there employer and they are his employeres. The "wages" that they are worthy of is God's provision for them, just like Jesus taught in Matthew 6. They work for his Kingdom, and God provides for them.

Agua takes this concept of an invisible God who cares for his laborers because they work for love and twists it into a money making scheme where it's not longer about working for love, but working for "wages".

In his attempt to justify the idea that we would all die if we didn't give our lives over to working for money he assumes that any talk of labor, or work, or wages, or hire MUST mean loyalty to the system as our boss rather than loyalty to God as our boss.

It's a classic case of a carnal person being carnal minded.

In Paul's case, he reiterated Jesus' teachings, asking "who goes to war at his own wages"? It was an example of how, even worldly militaries do not expect their soldiers to go out and get a job with some other employer so they can support themselves while in the army, because if they tried to do that then they wouldn't have time to be in the army. It's the same with us and that is the point of not being able to work for two masters at the same time.

We are in God's army now. It's our job to work for him and it's his job to take care of us. Going out to work for some other employer is like abandoning our post, because the general has already told us he will take care of us.

But Agua takes a teaching like this and says , see? Paul talked about us supporting ourselves. He totally misses the point because he doesn't believe that God really would take care of him if he just did what the disciples did.

Act 18:3 NKJV So, because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and worked; for by occupation they were tentmakers.
This is a distortion of what is actually written but hey, that's what convenient doctrines are all about.

There is only ONE verse in the entire Bible that mentions Paul tent making. The background is that Paul was on his own and feeling frustrated that the Church he was teaching wasn't helping him. Because he didn't want to sound like the bad guy and demand that they help him, he decided that he would try to provide for himself. He later apologizes to this particular church for taking it easy on them, because what they needed was hard love and he didn't give it to them.

Anyway, eventually Timothy and Silus show up and it says that Paul was pressed in the spirit and immediately went back to preaching the gospel full time.

But, EVEN IF Paul did teach that people should busy themselves making money instead of preaching the gospel, so what? It's still not what Jesus taught or practiced. Paul himself said that if he or an angle from Heaven should teaching anything other than what Jesus taught, he should be accursed.

Paul was a great man, but he was still human and subject to faults and he didn't want people following him in areas where he slipped up.

Paying God's workers was instituted initially through the tithe where the priests/Levites were paid because they were in full time service for God. This concept was reinforced by Jesus as shown above.
Three points here:
1) "Tithe" literally means "10%" and is old testament teaching. Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and bumped it up to 100%. Luke 14:33

2) Notice the condition here; FULL TIME service to God.

3) Jesus said we are all priests in his kingdom now.

4) Agua is apparently suggesting that God doesn't want all of us in his full time employ, because he needs most of us out there working for money so "the priests" don't starve to death. This is NOT what Jesus taught. It is in fact a perversion of what Jesus said, based on convenience.

Very poor analogy. Fornication and adultery are sin. Working for wages is a biblical concept which Jesus taught and your self decided ideal isn't.

No, it's a very relevant analogy because the point isn't about what the particular offense is, but about justifying the offense using a convenient doctrine.

For example, Jesus said that when we give, we should do it secretly and that people who give openly will get no reward in Heaven, because they "respect" they get from people here on Earth is all the reward they get.

But the majority of Christianity totally ignores that and somehow or another they just can't help but let someone know about the secret giving they did.

They claim that it's okay because it's being done to the glory of God. What Jesus said becomes pointless, and they do so on the basis that it's God's glory that makes his teachings pointless! it's so disgusting.

That's what's happening with this work for love vs money thing. Jesus says that the Kingdom of heaven is about sharing with one another and that anyone who becomes an employ of God, working for love, will be provided for by God.

But Agua says the kingdom of Heaven really isn't about working for one another out of love. It's about providing for ourselves and we can make up for the part where we are not working for love by claiming that it's all to the glory of God!
 
Last edited:
MLP,I can see your position on this.
agua I can see your position on this.

You both have valid justification for seeing the way you do so I think your both right.
Jesus is expressing an ideal kingdom mindset.One that I care deeply about in fact I am somewhat of a survivalist.Since I was a kid I had a fear of the collapse of society and prepared myself.I actually could survive on the land.
However I am not lead to do so because that would isolate me from those I am supposed to interact with.I got married and had children and took on bills before I came to Christ.If I did not have these prior obligations I would gladly join you in telling the entire merchant system to take a hike.I would not tell others they must do likewise.

I see it as something to strive for but not into another bondage.
The book of acts community is an example of how it could work but that community came under attack and didn't endure.
It's my hope that that community will rise again but there will be many counterfeits like communism and Jonestown.

I am sure it is given to some to perform this now but for others just believing a rich man will pay you enough to live takes much faith.
Peace
 
Last edited:
Hi TCH. I was wondering when you'd get back.

You both have valid justification for seeing the way you do so I think your both right.

Since you've been away, I've said quite a bit to support my position here and it's not clear to me if you read all of it, which I don't mind since there is a lot of text.

I can appreciate that you want to see the best in agua's and my position on what Jesus said, but I feel it is not really possible that we can both be right, because we are saying two opposite things.

I am saying that Jesus taught against us using our time to get more money. Agua is saying Jesus did not teach that.

Jesus is expressing an ideal kingdom mindset.One that I care deeply about in fact I am somewhat of a survivalist.Since I was a kid I had a fear of the collapse of society and prepared myself.I actually could survive on the land.

Actually, I am not suggesting that one must live off the land in order to apply the concept that I am promoting here.

You may not have noticed, but agua has asked me several times that, if I really believe what I say, then I should prove it to him by detailing how it works for me.

The basic point is that it is GOD we need to listen to when it comes to how he will provide for us. At some time it may be farming, at another time it may come in the form of donations from well-wishers or maybe even scavenging. There is no set formula and that is the whole point of living by faith.

But it is the "formula" that agua is asking for. If I say farming he'll have some reason for why that is not really living by faith. If I say donations, he'll have some reason for why that isn't really living by faith.

This became evident when I posted a list of verses throughout the NT (but mostly from Jesus and his disciples in the 4 gospels) showing a very consistent picture confirming what I've been saying about Jesus' teachings on money up to this point.

For each verse agua had some reason why it either did not matter to us or why the verse didn't mean what it clearly said.

In the end there is no amount of argument or evidence which can convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced to apply what Jesus said the way Jesus himself and his disciples applied it.

For that reason, along with some other reasons I listed about agua's communication toward me, is why I took to not responding directly to him, but rather, commenting on his comments for anyone who may be looking on and may feel inspired by it.
.
However I am not lead to do so because that would isolate me from those I am supposed to interact with.I got married and had children and took on bills before I came to Christ.If I did not have these prior obligations I would gladly join you in telling the entire merchant system to take a hike.I would not tell others they must do likewise.

Well in the end you need to do what you feel is best for your family, the same as agua, but I feel it is the same point agua has been consistently missing, to assume that God cannot take care of a family in the same way he can take care of an individual person.

I know families who have tried this before and it worked for them. I know it sounds scary but that is part of what being born again is all about. It's not just a mindset and it's not just a cliche. It's something we DO.

I'm not pushing anyone to do anything specific about this. I am simply saying that Jesus set standards for his Kingdom.

The book of acts community is an example of how it could work but that community came under attack and didn't endure.
It's my hope that that community will rise again but there will be many counterfeits like communism and Jonestown.

Thank you for bringing up the community in acts. I feel it is interesting that you feel you could not apply this idea of living by faith to yourself because of your family obligations, and yet the community in acts was made up of thousands of believers. This would definitely have included women and children so it is possible.

Anyway, I think it's great that you are open to the idea that a community like that really could work. Actually, I know of a community which DOES practice those values, although it's a heck-of-a-lot smaller than thousands!!!

That's part of why I am so convinced of what I am promoting here, because I've SEEN it work.
 
It is all very well to gather in small communities and escape the world and live and work for one another. I think that will be great...in heaven. But here on earth, Jesus has given us our work. "Go into all the world and preach the gospel, teaching all men everywhere to do all that He has commanded them, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
Elsewhere Jesus said for us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, heal the sick and visit those in prison.
To preach the gospel we need Bibles. To print Bibles costs money. Lots of money. Tracts, pamphlets, books, radio and television broadcasting, satellite downlinks all cost money. Lots more money. But in a world that is growing faster than we can reach them for Jesus, we need every help we can get to reach the lost before He returns. It all takes money. Money from people who love Jesus and earnestly seek the same end result as you, people saved for the kingdom. But people I know don't have money sitting around to spare. They need to work for what they can give away to missions and ministries. And while those in full time ministry don't necessarily work for wages, they themselves still have to eat and provide for families. This also takes money. The world hates what Christians are doing...they are not going to come to the party, so it is entirely up to hard working generous Christians to support the preaching of the gospel worldwide.
To feed the hungry takes money.
To clothe the naked takes money.
to house the homeless, care for the widows, look after the orphans, takes money.
To provide medicines for the sick and diseased, to care for the dying, to give comfort and support to the infirm and disabled, takes money.
To provide for the spiritual needs of those in prison; to pay for Bibles, to provide books, and in some third world countries food and clothing, takes money.

My little pony, it seems obvious to me that the money that is going to all these worthwhile and essential endeavours in obeying Jesus and sharing the gospel worldwide, is coming from Christians willing to give a portion, and in some cases a large portion, ( and it could be arguably put forward that it could be a lot more) of their weekly, fortnightly , monthly pay packet. Of course, I could also presume that none of it comes from you. Except of course your 'love'. Unfortunately your love doesn't fill the stomach, keep me warm, or put a roof over my head.
 
Back
Top