Hi Steve,
Jesus says in Mt 6:31-33:
Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
And yet Paul says (in 2 Co 11:27) that he was ...in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness...
Also, I recall John 6:26-27 which says,
Jesus answered them and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”
Obviously, Paul was a man who sought after the kingdom of God but yet he sufferred hunger, thirst and nakedness, so how should I understand what Jesus is saying about these things (food, drink, clothing; i.e., essential needs) being provided to those who seek after the kingdom of God? Is Jesus referring to physical needs or does he mean spiritual needs (as per John 6:26-27)?
Matthew 6:33 - All these things shall be added to you
-
_Benjamin Ho
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:16 am
- Location: Singapore
Matthew 6:33 - All these things shall be added to you
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Grace and peace,
Benjamin Ho
Benjamin Ho
I believe that Jesus is saying that, like the flowers and the birds, we need be concerned only with fulfilling the will of God (in our case, seeking His kingdom and His righteousness), and, in the course of our doing so, God will worry about the necessities of life.
The fact that Paul could write of having been, previously, in hunger and nakedness proved that he had survived those seasons of which he wrote--meaning that, even though provisions were scarce, at times, they were always adequate to sustain life. And no dearth, apparently was so crippling as to prevent Paul from continuing in his mission and his pursuit of the kingdom of God.
Of course, even the provision that God makes for the flowers has an end. "The flower fades, the grass withers..." and the sparrows eventually die...but "not one falls to the ground apart from the will of your Father." The will of the Father is all that matters to those who seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. If it is His will that they die and go to heaven earlier, rather than later, it is all the same to them.
The verse about not laboring for the food that perishes but only for that which is eternal is making the same point, I think. The food that perishes is one of the things that is necessary to sustain physical life, thus it is God's concern to continually provide it (and all other things necessary to life) for His servants, so long as it is His will for their natural lives to continue on earth. The servants don't need to worry about such things, so long as their Master is solvent. They need only concern themselves with doing their Master's pleasure. It is in His interests to keep His servants' souls and bodies together for however long they can be useful to Him here. Beyond that point, why stay around?
The fact that Paul could write of having been, previously, in hunger and nakedness proved that he had survived those seasons of which he wrote--meaning that, even though provisions were scarce, at times, they were always adequate to sustain life. And no dearth, apparently was so crippling as to prevent Paul from continuing in his mission and his pursuit of the kingdom of God.
Of course, even the provision that God makes for the flowers has an end. "The flower fades, the grass withers..." and the sparrows eventually die...but "not one falls to the ground apart from the will of your Father." The will of the Father is all that matters to those who seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. If it is His will that they die and go to heaven earlier, rather than later, it is all the same to them.
The verse about not laboring for the food that perishes but only for that which is eternal is making the same point, I think. The food that perishes is one of the things that is necessary to sustain physical life, thus it is God's concern to continually provide it (and all other things necessary to life) for His servants, so long as it is His will for their natural lives to continue on earth. The servants don't need to worry about such things, so long as their Master is solvent. They need only concern themselves with doing their Master's pleasure. It is in His interests to keep His servants' souls and bodies together for however long they can be useful to Him here. Beyond that point, why stay around?
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
All this is true. And yet, the earth is but a mirror of heaven. Things that are physical and temporary to us now, do exist and are actually permanent in the Kingdom of Heaven. After all, there's a heavenly Jerusalem - a city in which saints live. Plants and animals on the earth were created "after their kind" and were created "before they were in the earth" according to Genesis 2:5 - meaning that they had a heavenly counterpart which already existed before they were created in the earth.
Therefore, it's not wrong to desire fine clothes, a nice house, good food, etc. However, we shouldn't set these things as more important than seeking the Kingdom itself, in part because, whether now or in the Kingdom, all of these things will be given to us.
Damon
PS. A final thought, here. What should the Kingdom of Heaven mean to us now? Well, it's all about relationships, especially our relationship with God. So, our focus should be on our relationships, even though we have the blessings of this life as well as in the Kingdom as a result of our relationship with God (Mat. 7:7-11).
Therefore, it's not wrong to desire fine clothes, a nice house, good food, etc. However, we shouldn't set these things as more important than seeking the Kingdom itself, in part because, whether now or in the Kingdom, all of these things will be given to us.
Damon
PS. A final thought, here. What should the Kingdom of Heaven mean to us now? Well, it's all about relationships, especially our relationship with God. So, our focus should be on our relationships, even though we have the blessings of this life as well as in the Kingdom as a result of our relationship with God (Mat. 7:7-11).
Last edited by jaiotu on Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Sorry, I can't amen Damons' statements. "And if we have food and covering, with these we shall be content. But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction." 1 Timothy 6:8-9
Notice Damon's modifiers: "fine", "nice", and "good". These words indicate that there can be, in the eyes of some, "not fine", "not nice", "not good" things. The desire to then define and pursue those things that a person deems finer, nicer, and better causes a person to be distracted from pursuing the kingdom and being content with what God has already provided. Thus, the notion that there is nothing wrong with desiring those finer, nicer, and better things as long as it lags behind the desire for the kingdom (like what, a close second?) is off base, and not what Paul taught the church, nor what he testified of concerning his own journey with Jesus.
a1
[/i]
Notice Damon's modifiers: "fine", "nice", and "good". These words indicate that there can be, in the eyes of some, "not fine", "not nice", "not good" things. The desire to then define and pursue those things that a person deems finer, nicer, and better causes a person to be distracted from pursuing the kingdom and being content with what God has already provided. Thus, the notion that there is nothing wrong with desiring those finer, nicer, and better things as long as it lags behind the desire for the kingdom (like what, a close second?) is off base, and not what Paul taught the church, nor what he testified of concerning his own journey with Jesus.
a1
[/i]
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Well, Anonymous1, I guess we'll have to disagree on that score.
Let me ask you something, though. Are you afraid that if you, or someone else, were to get rich, those riches would distract from the pursuit of the Kingdom? Is it because of fear that you feel this way?
I'd honestly like to know the answer to that, because I've run into a lot of people who do have that very fear. But as for myself, I'm not afraid. I have no fear that my love for God will be compromised by whatever God chooses to bless me with or withhold from me. Yes, I do pursue "the finer things in life" because:
1. I believe that God is an abundant God. He could have put just a few stars in the sky, but He put thousands upon thousands there! He could have created just a few types of plants or animals, but instead He created thousands upon thousands! He could have given saints like Abraham and David little, and yet He gave them more riches than they could ever need!
2. I want to be a tool to bless others. My whole family is poor and I don't always want to be on the receiving end of private loans or even charity - which I have been rather too often for comfort. I'd like to be able to give to others just as others have given to me.
3. Last but by no means least, I'm a creative person and I like to express myself. Part of how I express myself is in how I dress or where I go out to eat, for instance.
Now, there is a difference between being wealthy and enjoying the finer things in life, and being decadent to the point of excess. I very strongly feel that you're homogenizing the two together, leaving no room for a person to be wealthy without it detracting from the pursuit of the Kingdom. There are many saints in the bible who were wealthy without being decadent, and though they had their own sins and problems to deal with, they were no worse than the sins and problems that those who are less well off have to deal with.
If you feel differently, I'm certainly open to listening to what you have to say. Nevertheless, as things stand now, I see no choice but to disagree with you.
Damon
Let me ask you something, though. Are you afraid that if you, or someone else, were to get rich, those riches would distract from the pursuit of the Kingdom? Is it because of fear that you feel this way?
I'd honestly like to know the answer to that, because I've run into a lot of people who do have that very fear. But as for myself, I'm not afraid. I have no fear that my love for God will be compromised by whatever God chooses to bless me with or withhold from me. Yes, I do pursue "the finer things in life" because:
1. I believe that God is an abundant God. He could have put just a few stars in the sky, but He put thousands upon thousands there! He could have created just a few types of plants or animals, but instead He created thousands upon thousands! He could have given saints like Abraham and David little, and yet He gave them more riches than they could ever need!
2. I want to be a tool to bless others. My whole family is poor and I don't always want to be on the receiving end of private loans or even charity - which I have been rather too often for comfort. I'd like to be able to give to others just as others have given to me.
3. Last but by no means least, I'm a creative person and I like to express myself. Part of how I express myself is in how I dress or where I go out to eat, for instance.
Now, there is a difference between being wealthy and enjoying the finer things in life, and being decadent to the point of excess. I very strongly feel that you're homogenizing the two together, leaving no room for a person to be wealthy without it detracting from the pursuit of the Kingdom. There are many saints in the bible who were wealthy without being decadent, and though they had their own sins and problems to deal with, they were no worse than the sins and problems that those who are less well off have to deal with.
If you feel differently, I'm certainly open to listening to what you have to say. Nevertheless, as things stand now, I see no choice but to disagree with you.
Damon
Last edited by jaiotu on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Damon,
I don't know who anonymous1 is, but I agree with his/her sentiments. I actually did not find much to object to in your first post (above), and did not intend to respond to the few things where we do not see eye-to-eye. However, I have some things to say about your most recent comments.
You wrote:
"Let me ask you something, though. Are you afraid that if you, or someone else, were to get rich, those riches would distract from the pursuit of the Kingdom? Is it because of fear that you feel this way?"
The biblical sage Agur certainly had the fear that he could not handle wealth without detriment to his soul (Prov.30:8-9). Anyone who takes seriously the statement that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God might not be faulted for having a degree of fear and trepidation in finding himself burdened with that handicap.
That does not mean that Christians must maintain a "poverty ethic." But it does mean that anyone who desires to be rich has no clear perception of the dangers to the soul that accompany affluence, or else cares less about his soul than about other things (e.g., image, comfort, earthly security, etc.). If we are burdened with superfluous riches (as most Americans are) then we ought to "pass the time of our sojourning here with fear" (1 Pet.1:17) and abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul" (1 Pet.2:11).
It is sometimes said that Paul was quite at ease, spiritually, whether he was abased (poor) or whether abounding (Phil.4:12), and so there should be no problem for the Christian who "abounds." However, there are two important considerations not to be overlooked:
1) the reason Paul was spiritually safe, regardless of his financial circumstances, was that he "had learned in whatever state [he was] to be content" (Phil.411)--this attitude is the opposite of desiring the "finer," "nicer" and "better" things in life;
2) what Paul calls "abounding" may bear little resemblance to anything we affluent Americans might refer to in such terms. For example, in the same passage where Paul says he knows how to "abound," he also says that he was, at that very moment "abounding" (Phil.4:18). Quite a statement, in view of the fact that he was writing from a Third-World prison! I doubt if his "abounding" included many of the "finer" things of life. There is a good chance that, if he were to meet a modern, American Christian that we would call "middle-class," Paul might well describe that person's state as "filthy rich."
You wrote:
"...as for myself, I'm not afraid."
And I hope that you may have nothing to fear. However, there are many American Christians, who, like yourself, would say that they are not afraid, but who, if we take Jesus' warnings seriously, would seem to have cause to fear. Not being afraid is no proof that there is nothing to fear. It may sometimes merely prove that a person is insensitive to the danger he/she is in.
You wrote:
"Yes, I do pursue "the finer things in life" because:
1. I believe that God is an abundant God. He could have put just a few stars in the sky, but He put thousands upon thousands there! He could have created just a few types of plants or animals, but instead He created thousands upon thousands! He could have given saints like Abraham and David little, and yet He gave them more riches than they could ever need!
2. I want to be a tool to bless others. My whole family is poor and I don't always want to be on the receiving end of private loans or even charity - which I have been rather too often for comfort. I'd like to be able to give to others just as others have given to me.
3. Last but by no means least, I'm a creative person and I like to express myself. Part of how I express myself is in how I dress or where I go out to eat, for instance."
On point one: God is extravagant in His blessings to mankind, it is true, and He has given us all these things "richly to enjoy" (1 Tim.6:17). But God's generosity to humanity, in general, or to an individual, provides no indication of how He wants us to steward the resources He has given us. The presence of billions of stars and flowers, for everyone to enjoy, does not change the fact that there are billions of people who do not have enough to eat, and that even larger numbers have no knowledge of the Gospel, while American Christians sit by and enjoy the view!
The possession of advantages translates into the possession of responsibilities. We are not forbidden from receiving wealth, but we are specifically told not to lay wealth up for ourselves on earth (Matt.6:19). This being a direct command from Jesus Christ, I had rather heed this principle than risk my fate on the majority opinion or instincts of affluent western Christianity. We will give an account to God for the money we spent acquiring for ourselves "the finer things" when there are beggars at our door who have to settle for dogs licking their wounds (read Luke 16:19ff in this connection);
On point two: There is certainly something commendable about wanting to bless others. However, I don't see what "seeking the finer things in life" for yourself has to do with this goal, except for its being in conflict with it. No one is suggesting that you should not generate a great deal of money, if your pursuit of the kingdom of God happens to bring such in its train. It is the desire to live richly that is the spiritual concern here (1 Tim.6:9);
On point three: I don't understand how being a "creative" person has much to do with the cut of your clothes or the places you eat. A creative person creates things. "Creating" something for the benefit of others and "paying someone to create" something for you (say, a meal or an article of clothing) are entirely different activities. I am not saying there is anything wrong with the latter, but it certainly should not be confused with the former.
Probably, it would have been more accurate to say that you are a "stylish" person (this, unlike creativity, is not a natural endowment, but a choice). There is nothing wrong with being creative (depending on what it is you create, and whether it glorifies God or not), and there may be nothing wrong with being stylish either, depending on what "style" and "image" you are aiming at, and how the pursuit of that image impacts your Christian living generally and stewardship particularly.
You wrote:
"Now, there is a difference between being wealthy and enjoying the finer things in life, and being decadent to the point of excess."
I don't think it is my place, or yours, to tell anyone else whether their personal, elective spending is excessive (unless they ask my opinion). What one person sees as essential, another may see as excessive. However, if "to the point of excess" is how you are defining "decadent," then you are more strict than I am about such things. I do not judge a person for having more than they need (that is what "excess" means), nor would I necessarily call such a person "decadent." It is a person's attachment to excessive possions that is the concern (such attachment is what you sound like you are defending). I can certainly say that I have more things than I need (to survive, that is), and thus, I have things that are "excessive" or "superfluous." The important questions are: Did I seek these things? Am I motivated to hang on to these things? and Would it bother me if I were required to part with them? These questions tell me where my heart is, and that is what is at issue here.
I don't know who anonymous1 is, but I agree with his/her sentiments. I actually did not find much to object to in your first post (above), and did not intend to respond to the few things where we do not see eye-to-eye. However, I have some things to say about your most recent comments.
You wrote:
"Let me ask you something, though. Are you afraid that if you, or someone else, were to get rich, those riches would distract from the pursuit of the Kingdom? Is it because of fear that you feel this way?"
The biblical sage Agur certainly had the fear that he could not handle wealth without detriment to his soul (Prov.30:8-9). Anyone who takes seriously the statement that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God might not be faulted for having a degree of fear and trepidation in finding himself burdened with that handicap.
That does not mean that Christians must maintain a "poverty ethic." But it does mean that anyone who desires to be rich has no clear perception of the dangers to the soul that accompany affluence, or else cares less about his soul than about other things (e.g., image, comfort, earthly security, etc.). If we are burdened with superfluous riches (as most Americans are) then we ought to "pass the time of our sojourning here with fear" (1 Pet.1:17) and abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul" (1 Pet.2:11).
It is sometimes said that Paul was quite at ease, spiritually, whether he was abased (poor) or whether abounding (Phil.4:12), and so there should be no problem for the Christian who "abounds." However, there are two important considerations not to be overlooked:
1) the reason Paul was spiritually safe, regardless of his financial circumstances, was that he "had learned in whatever state [he was] to be content" (Phil.411)--this attitude is the opposite of desiring the "finer," "nicer" and "better" things in life;
2) what Paul calls "abounding" may bear little resemblance to anything we affluent Americans might refer to in such terms. For example, in the same passage where Paul says he knows how to "abound," he also says that he was, at that very moment "abounding" (Phil.4:18). Quite a statement, in view of the fact that he was writing from a Third-World prison! I doubt if his "abounding" included many of the "finer" things of life. There is a good chance that, if he were to meet a modern, American Christian that we would call "middle-class," Paul might well describe that person's state as "filthy rich."
You wrote:
"...as for myself, I'm not afraid."
And I hope that you may have nothing to fear. However, there are many American Christians, who, like yourself, would say that they are not afraid, but who, if we take Jesus' warnings seriously, would seem to have cause to fear. Not being afraid is no proof that there is nothing to fear. It may sometimes merely prove that a person is insensitive to the danger he/she is in.
You wrote:
"Yes, I do pursue "the finer things in life" because:
1. I believe that God is an abundant God. He could have put just a few stars in the sky, but He put thousands upon thousands there! He could have created just a few types of plants or animals, but instead He created thousands upon thousands! He could have given saints like Abraham and David little, and yet He gave them more riches than they could ever need!
2. I want to be a tool to bless others. My whole family is poor and I don't always want to be on the receiving end of private loans or even charity - which I have been rather too often for comfort. I'd like to be able to give to others just as others have given to me.
3. Last but by no means least, I'm a creative person and I like to express myself. Part of how I express myself is in how I dress or where I go out to eat, for instance."
On point one: God is extravagant in His blessings to mankind, it is true, and He has given us all these things "richly to enjoy" (1 Tim.6:17). But God's generosity to humanity, in general, or to an individual, provides no indication of how He wants us to steward the resources He has given us. The presence of billions of stars and flowers, for everyone to enjoy, does not change the fact that there are billions of people who do not have enough to eat, and that even larger numbers have no knowledge of the Gospel, while American Christians sit by and enjoy the view!
The possession of advantages translates into the possession of responsibilities. We are not forbidden from receiving wealth, but we are specifically told not to lay wealth up for ourselves on earth (Matt.6:19). This being a direct command from Jesus Christ, I had rather heed this principle than risk my fate on the majority opinion or instincts of affluent western Christianity. We will give an account to God for the money we spent acquiring for ourselves "the finer things" when there are beggars at our door who have to settle for dogs licking their wounds (read Luke 16:19ff in this connection);
On point two: There is certainly something commendable about wanting to bless others. However, I don't see what "seeking the finer things in life" for yourself has to do with this goal, except for its being in conflict with it. No one is suggesting that you should not generate a great deal of money, if your pursuit of the kingdom of God happens to bring such in its train. It is the desire to live richly that is the spiritual concern here (1 Tim.6:9);
On point three: I don't understand how being a "creative" person has much to do with the cut of your clothes or the places you eat. A creative person creates things. "Creating" something for the benefit of others and "paying someone to create" something for you (say, a meal or an article of clothing) are entirely different activities. I am not saying there is anything wrong with the latter, but it certainly should not be confused with the former.
Probably, it would have been more accurate to say that you are a "stylish" person (this, unlike creativity, is not a natural endowment, but a choice). There is nothing wrong with being creative (depending on what it is you create, and whether it glorifies God or not), and there may be nothing wrong with being stylish either, depending on what "style" and "image" you are aiming at, and how the pursuit of that image impacts your Christian living generally and stewardship particularly.
You wrote:
"Now, there is a difference between being wealthy and enjoying the finer things in life, and being decadent to the point of excess."
I don't think it is my place, or yours, to tell anyone else whether their personal, elective spending is excessive (unless they ask my opinion). What one person sees as essential, another may see as excessive. However, if "to the point of excess" is how you are defining "decadent," then you are more strict than I am about such things. I do not judge a person for having more than they need (that is what "excess" means), nor would I necessarily call such a person "decadent." It is a person's attachment to excessive possions that is the concern (such attachment is what you sound like you are defending). I can certainly say that I have more things than I need (to survive, that is), and thus, I have things that are "excessive" or "superfluous." The important questions are: Did I seek these things? Am I motivated to hang on to these things? and Would it bother me if I were required to part with them? These questions tell me where my heart is, and that is what is at issue here.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Well, Damon, as Reagan said, “There you go again.”
You ignore Scripture, while employing your armchair psychiatry to deflect an argument. Oh how your use of italics pierces my soul.
You then step lively to the third weapon in your vast rhetorical arsenal, the
personal anecdote. Here, I learn that Damon has run into many people who have this “fear” as you characterize it. Do you charge for these sessions?
Finally, the Daisy Cutter of Damon’s arguments comes in to play: Damon holds himself up as a stellar example of the topic at hand. “What is your concern about people being distracted by the pursuit of finer things? Just look at MEEEEEEEEEEEEE!”
You have no fear of compromise? Wow. “Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted (except you, Damon. You da man!).” Galatians 6:1 You would do well to heed the example of Demas (2 Timothy 4:10).
As for your 3 reasons for pursuing the finer things in life, what does point number one have to do with the issue of God’s provision and our contentment? You arbitrarily point out two men who were blessed abundantantly. Need we take note of those who were content with what they had, even when it was comparably less? Maybe we can start with Jesus.
How does your admitted personal pursuit of the finer things in life bless others? And how do they know when they are being blessed by your pursuit? “That Damon is such a blessing. Even now he is receiving a pedicure.”
Did you actually say that you are a creative eater? You artist, you. And maybe less time and money spent on expressing yourself through your wardrobe could be of benefit to people in need. You want to be a tool, right?
I’ve only homogenized once, but the charges were dropped. I leave plenty of room for a person to be wealthy without it detracting from the kingdom. I also leave plenty of room to receive warning from the Scriptures, something you do not do when you state your fearlessness as it relates to compromise. “....If riches increase, do not set your heart
upon them.” Psalm 62:10
“Instruct (except Damon, he’s got this stuff down) those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life
indeed.” 1 Timothy 6:17-19
a1
You ignore Scripture, while employing your armchair psychiatry to deflect an argument. Oh how your use of italics pierces my soul.
You then step lively to the third weapon in your vast rhetorical arsenal, the
personal anecdote. Here, I learn that Damon has run into many people who have this “fear” as you characterize it. Do you charge for these sessions?
Finally, the Daisy Cutter of Damon’s arguments comes in to play: Damon holds himself up as a stellar example of the topic at hand. “What is your concern about people being distracted by the pursuit of finer things? Just look at MEEEEEEEEEEEEE!”
You have no fear of compromise? Wow. “Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted (except you, Damon. You da man!).” Galatians 6:1 You would do well to heed the example of Demas (2 Timothy 4:10).
As for your 3 reasons for pursuing the finer things in life, what does point number one have to do with the issue of God’s provision and our contentment? You arbitrarily point out two men who were blessed abundantantly. Need we take note of those who were content with what they had, even when it was comparably less? Maybe we can start with Jesus.
How does your admitted personal pursuit of the finer things in life bless others? And how do they know when they are being blessed by your pursuit? “That Damon is such a blessing. Even now he is receiving a pedicure.”
Did you actually say that you are a creative eater? You artist, you. And maybe less time and money spent on expressing yourself through your wardrobe could be of benefit to people in need. You want to be a tool, right?
I’ve only homogenized once, but the charges were dropped. I leave plenty of room for a person to be wealthy without it detracting from the kingdom. I also leave plenty of room to receive warning from the Scriptures, something you do not do when you state your fearlessness as it relates to compromise. “....If riches increase, do not set your heart
upon them.” Psalm 62:10
“Instruct (except Damon, he’s got this stuff down) those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life
indeed.” 1 Timothy 6:17-19
a1
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Steve.
One main reason is because it's so very, very easy to become insensitive to those who are less 'abundant' in their lives. Money can resolve an awful lot of problems, and so it's easy for those who are wealthy and have never had to deal with certain problems that are exacerbated by a lack of abundance, to be insensitive to others who have had to deal with such problems.
Yes, there are other reasons why Jesus said this, but this is a major one, I believe. Now, Jesus Himself was not poor, as I hope you understand. His family were carpenters by trade, and His uncle - Joseph of Arimathea - was an extremely wealthy man. According to secular history, he was a tin tradesman who traveled all over the then-known world and was a Roman Senator in addition to being a member of the Jewish San Hedrin. So Jesus never lacked for any necessity. Nevertheless, He Himself was very sensitive to the plight of the poor.
An artist paints, sculpts or draws because that's a gift that God has given them. In the same way, I try to dress well because that's a gift that God has given me. Art can be a blessing and a source of enjoyment to others, and in the same way, I'd like for what I wear to be a source of enjoyment (and occasionally amusement, when I wear my Three Stooges tie) for others.
Damon
Yes, I understand what you're saying, but why did Jesus make that statement? What was the underlying point that He was trying to make? Why is it "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle", etc.?Steve wrote:The biblical sage Agur certainly had the fear that he could not handle wealth without detriment to his soul (Prov.30:8-9). Anyone who takes seriously the statement that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God might not be faulted for having a degree of fear and trepidation in finding himself burdened with that handicap.
One main reason is because it's so very, very easy to become insensitive to those who are less 'abundant' in their lives. Money can resolve an awful lot of problems, and so it's easy for those who are wealthy and have never had to deal with certain problems that are exacerbated by a lack of abundance, to be insensitive to others who have had to deal with such problems.
Yes, there are other reasons why Jesus said this, but this is a major one, I believe. Now, Jesus Himself was not poor, as I hope you understand. His family were carpenters by trade, and His uncle - Joseph of Arimathea - was an extremely wealthy man. According to secular history, he was a tin tradesman who traveled all over the then-known world and was a Roman Senator in addition to being a member of the Jewish San Hedrin. So Jesus never lacked for any necessity. Nevertheless, He Himself was very sensitive to the plight of the poor.
Well, as I mentioned in my point two, I've already given thought to that. But as far as being commanded not to "store up wealth for ourselves on earth," the principle is twofold. First of all, there's the matter of where our "treasure" is, whether in the Kingdom or of this world. I already dealt with that in my first response to this thread, so let me get to the second principle. The parable that Jesus connected with this principle is found in Luke 12:15-31, where a rich man, in deciding what to do with the abundance of worldly possessions that he had accumulated, decided to keep it all for himself. But in so doing, he condemned himself, because God took his life from him on that very day. Abundance isn't meant to be hoarded, but rather shared so that all may be richly blessed by it!Steve wrote:On point one: God is extravagant in His blessings to mankind, it is true, and He has given us all these things "richly to enjoy" (1 Tim.6:17). But God's generosity to humanity, in general, or to an individual, provides no indication of how He wants us to steward the resources He has given us. The possession of advantages translates into the possession of responsibilities. We are not forbidden from receiving wealth, but we are specifically told not to lay wealth up for ourselves on earth (Matt.6:19). This being a direct command from Jesus Christ, I had rather heed this principle than risk my fate on the majority opinion or instincts of affluent western Christianity. We will give an account to God for the money we spent acquiring for ourselves "the finer things" when there are beggars at our door who have to settle for dogs licking their wounds (read Luke 16:19ff in this connection);
I look at it this way. The clothes that I wear are, to me, a reflection of who I am inside. I don't want to be drab, wearing dull colors, or wearing clothes that are falling apart or aren't the right size for me. (I'm of slight build, so finding clothing that fits me properly and isn't too big can get expensive.) I want to "wear" brightness, creativity, serenity, passion, and so on, because that's who I am. I don't measure myself against others and covet the finer things that they have. Rather, I measure myself outwardly against who I am inwardly.Steve wrote:On point two: There is certainly something commendable about wanting to bless others. However, I don't see what "seeking the finer things in life" for yourself has to do with this goal, except for its being in conflict with it. No one is suggesting that you should not generate a great deal of money, if your pursuit of the kingdom of God happens to bring such in its train. It is the desire to live richly that is the spiritual concern here (1 Tim.6:9);
An artist paints, sculpts or draws because that's a gift that God has given them. In the same way, I try to dress well because that's a gift that God has given me. Art can be a blessing and a source of enjoyment to others, and in the same way, I'd like for what I wear to be a source of enjoyment (and occasionally amusement, when I wear my Three Stooges tie) for others.
Well, I respectfully submit that you're missing part of what creativity is all about. Creativity can involve choosing certain clothes over others in order to express myself. (That's what you called being stylish, but even though the terminology is different the concept is the same.) It can also involve choosing certain foods - or certain restaurants - over others in order to express myself. A painter can choose certain colors in order to express a certain mood in his painting, and I'm doing exactly the same thing but with different subject matter. And again, it's not just for my own enjoyment, but for others' as well - especially if I'm able to take myself and them to a fine restaurant so that we can all enjoy some of the food I happen to like.Steve wrote:On point three: I don't understand how being a "creative" person has much to do with the cut of your clothes or the places you eat. A creative person creates things. "Creating" something for the benefit of others and "paying someone to create" something for you (say, a meal or an article of clothing) are entirely different activities. I am not saying there is anything wrong with the latter, but it certainly should not be confused with the former.
To give an example of what I meant, buying 200 identical pairs of shoes to keep in one's closet seems excessive to me because it serves no useful or creative purpose. And in any case, I feel that there's a middle road of balance between living modestly and living with the best of the best that the world has to offer, all of the time and in extreme quantity. Striking that balance can be very difficult to do, but I feel that it's not an unreachable goal.Steve wrote:I don't think it is my place, or yours, to tell anyone else whether their personal, elective spending is excessive (unless they ask my opinion). What one person sees as essential, another may see as excessive. However, if "to the point of excess" is how you are defining "decadent," then you are more strict than I am about such things.
Damon
Last edited by jaiotu on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Judge, judge, judge, condemn, condemn, condemn. Jesus said that you'll know them by their fruits. You don't know me personally, or what my fruits might be. You certainly don't know my heart. So, what right do you have to condemn me? Correct me, perhaps, but you were judging and condemning me instead.anonymous1 wrote:Well, Damon, as Reagan said, "There you go again."
This conversation with you is over. I'll talk with Steve but not with you.
Damon
Last edited by jaiotu on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: