Neither, actually. I don’t think you’re a hypocrite. The reason I gave has nothing to do with what hypocrisy is. I was attempting to make a point, really, that merely because your interpretation says one thing doesn’t mean you are that thing.
So let me ask you: in your interpretation, is having great wealth, in and of itself, a danger to a person’s immortal soul or not? To me it seems (that pesky word again) that the Bible offers abundant evidence that it is. And nobody had yet gainsaid that proposition in a way that satisfies me. People keep saying, “Well, there are plenty of valid interpretations,” but I want somebody to say to me, “Yes, I believe the Bible is indifferent to whether one is wealthy or not. It’s not a criterion for judgment.” Is anybody here saying that?
(Oh, and welcome to the boards, by the way!)
Because it muddies the waters. It seems to me that there are points where the Bible and the LDS scriptures are at variance. You can disagree, but you can also start your own thread on that, if you like. As I said before, if you object to Romney’s name here, throw in George Bush’s instead. My point is the same.
Whether you like it or not, Romney is LDS. As an active member of that Church, he presumably adheres to its theology and practices. What the LDS Scriptures state cannot be irrelevant to your OP when you consider Romney. I have already put the icing on the cake others have explained to you that as far as the theology of the LDS is concerned Romney is not in peril, not atheistic.
If you were to substitute Bush instead, it wouldn’t matter a whit what the LDS Scriptures state as Geoge Bush is not LDS. And, again, others have already proven to you your thesis is invalid.
By the way, I get enough shit from Christians on Christian boards where they are equating God and the Bible. I’d hope that the Straight Dope would be able to combat enough ignorance to make the distinction – regardless of whether you believe the one exists and where the other came from.
And it is totally relevant that Mitt Romney is LDS – they have their own unique theology, which I defer to Monty on. Whether his actions are sinful by the viewpoint of Catholicism, fundamentalism, or anyone else, is immaterial to whether he believes himself to be acting in accord with or outside God’s will – that would be based on the faith he adheres to.
Since God does not post regularly to this board, and nobody here has a universally accepted hotline to what He thinks, His opinions, while vitally important to Romney’s own future, are not relevant to what anybody else cares to post relative to Romney.
For the record, my own personal opinion is that he’s in serious sin, and should repent. But that’s almost as relevant as Der Trihs’s opinion that he should give up all that superstitious God business altogether; nobody appointed either of us as Romney’s judge on moral issues.
The voters, on the other hand – yes, they should vote their consciences, including whether or not they see him as violating what they consider moral principles he should be adhering to. But that’s for each of them to decide.
Well, I can’t say that the Bible is indifferent to the question of wealth. It is clearly a matter of concern, since it is a major part of life in almost every culture – and has been since biblical times. But sexuality, and family relationships, and community life are also issues of concern.
Is wealth a criterion for judgment? No, it’s not. Let me illustrate this way. I’m aware you’re an atheist, but for just a moment, let’s pretend you believe in eternal judgment. Let’s say I’ve taken a vow of poverty and have lived all my life in great devotion to God, reaching out to help others with every resource that comes my way. Suddenly one day, an anonymous benefactor gives me ten million dollars in cash to thank me for my efforts. I’ve never received that amount of money before, so I decide to consult and ponder how best to use the wealth I’ve suddenly been given. For a month, I consult with different charities and wise counselors. But after that month with all that wealth, I am struck by a bus and killed before I can do anything meaningful. I die a wealthy, wealthy man.
Is the simple fact that I have wealth going to keep me from my eternal reward? Absolutely not.
So wealth in itself is not a criterion for judgment. Our stewardship of our wealth is absolutely a criterion of judgment. It’s a criterion of judgment because it is a direct reflection of our priorities. If I really care about the people God created, then how I deal with my wealth will reflect that. I will use my wealth to help people, to provide for those who can’t provide for themselves, to spread it around. If I hold onto enough of the wealth so that I can continue to generate funds for the purpose of being able to provide more help, that’s OK, in my opinion. If I hold enough back to provide my children that same opportunity after I’m gone, that’s OK, too, in my opinion. (Proverbs 13:22 says “A good man leaves an inheritance for his children’s children, but a sinner’s wealth is stored up for the righteous.”)
It’s an issue of stewardship, not an issue of wealth. Someone who makes minimum wage and blows all his extra cash at the casino is a poor steward. A CEO who blows all her cash on yachts and private jets is a poor steward. There can be poor stewardship at both ends of the wealth spectrum, and in the same way, there can be GOOD stewardship at both ends of the spectrum. (Read Matthew 25:14-28 for a story about stewardship where someone who took good care of what they were given was given MORE to take care of. Read Mark 12:41-44 for the story of a widow who gave all she had. The AMOUNT wasn’t important, simply her willingness to give what she could to demonstrate her willingness to help however she could. These stories point out different aspects of financial stewardship.)
Where does Mitt fall on that “stewardship” scale? I don’t know. I haven’t researched it.
What I’ve written sums up what I interpret as the tenor of Scripture - both Old and New Testament - regarding wealth. It can be a problem, just as many other aspects of life can be, if priorities are misplaced. “Seek first the Kingdom of God” is the basic principle, as I see it.
In the interest of full disclosure, wealth is hardly an issue for me. I live paycheck to paycheck, and I help as often as I can - with all my resources, including my money and my time. If stewardship were only about wealth, I’d get a free pass. But it’s also about how we use our abilities and our time and our influence. Seeking God’s kingdom first involves ALL of those.
Thanks for the welcome. I was a member two or three years ago in the free days, and just never ponied up for membership. I’ve never really been gone, though, just silent. Ironically enough, I couldn’t justify spending the 15 bucks a year for a luxury. I finally decided God wouldn’t mind, though. 
Heh. If you don’t mind, what username did you use back then? If you don’t want to say, no problem of course!
SetApart, when you say, “wealth in itself is not a criterion for judgment” and “our stewardship of our wealth is absolutely a criterion of judgment,” I think we’re basically on the same page. We can quibble about the distinction, but it’s kind of beside the point. And what I’d like to say is that this is more or less the orthodox view, because it’s the most plausible view that a person would develop from taking Jesus’ words at face value.
Given that, it’s not that crazy to take departures from that view with a certain amount of skepticism. If we don’t believe the contrarian exegesis, we’re left to wonder about the exegete, “Do they really believe that?” or alternatively, “Are they being sincere to us about what they do believe?” My whole point in this thread has been that question two is not an illegitimate question – and in certain circumstances, where the gulf between theory and practice seems most pronounced, it’s absolutely the right question.
That’s not even close to what you posted in your OP and tried to defend in subsequent posts, Sal Ammoniac.
How so?
How so? You’re kidding, right? In the OP and a number of your subsequent posts, you’ve taken an absolutist position that the man’s wealth is damning. Now you’re saying in the post above that SetApart’s description that stewardship is the governing factor–a point which you may recall you dismissed earlier–is “essentially the same” as your OP. It’s not. They are two very different concepts.
Without getting into the Mormon idea of stewardship, having wealth (being wealthy, in other words) is the same as being a steward of wealth, no? You can make judgments about the stewardship of the wealth simply by noting the fact that someone has amassed, and is holding, X amount of wealth. In other words, if someone is holding a vast amount of wealth, it means they haven’t distributed it to the poor – they’ve exhibited bad stewardship, in the sense SetApart was talking about.
It’s a distinction without a difference, in other words.
Once again, you’re ignoring the simple fact that when discussing a Mormon’s stance on a scriptural issue you cannot avoid getting into Mormon theology.
Also, it is merely your opinion that it’s bad stewardship that somene who doesn’t distribute all the wealth that comes their way to the poor. Actually, another poster already showed you a reference from the Bible where your opinion is not the case.
Then put your face in the book.
Monty, if, when you initially read the OP, you failed to understand that I was using Romney as merely an example, that is my fault. But if you continue to misunderstand, then that is your fault, not mine, since I have already explained, in posts 82 and 103. I’ll even explain it a third time: I was using Romney as a test case, an example, but hardly the only example. Anybody similarly situated – anyone running for president, in fact – would do equally well.
If you don’t like to see Romney’s name, throw in John Edwards’ or Giuliani’s. It makes not an iota of difference to my argument.
There is no misunderstanding. You continue to pretend that your interpretation of the Scriptures is the only valid one. You have been shown by a number of other posters that it isn’t. Yet you still presume to condemn a man who is apparently operating under his church’s interpretation of Scripture. Your choice of an LDS individual was a poor choice, as explained to you by Polycarp. At any rate, your attempt to condemn anyone who is wealthy is ridiculous, again, as shown to you by a number of other posters.
Your argument is no such thing: it is merely unfounded condemnation.
Y’know, I was trying to remember that myself so I could register as that again, but I can’t recall what my username was. I probably first registered it six years ago or so – maybe longer. In any case, I wasn’t a prolific poster. In two or three years on the board I think I had between two and three hundred posts. So it’s doubtful you’d remember me. 
This whole thread has been almost nothing but you quibbling about the distinction. I’m glad you’ve joined me on my page. 
Absolutely. But look at the change you’ve made in your apparent attitude in this thread. You’ve gone from “Someone wealthy who calls himself a Christian is lying, and is basically an atheist” to “Someone who doesn’t match up with my interpretation of scripture will be looked at with skepticism by me”. I have issues with the attitude displayed in your first several posts, but I agree with the attitude that you’re expressing now.
Yes to the first sentence, no to the second. You can make judgments about the stewardship of wealth by noting the fact that they’ve amassed wealth. But it doesn’t logically follow for every observer that the simple amassing of it requires a judgment of poor stewardship.
For instance, someone who has built a great fortune by hard work and wise investments has in many ways been a very good steward. What if he’s saving up so that in one fell swoop he can revitalize an entire community? What if he’s maintaining a billion dollar reserve so that he can use the other hundreds of millions earned by the billion for charitable purposes? If he wants to swim around like Scrooge McDuck in the billion dollars cash while it earns money, so what? Similarly, if he buys a house in Aruba to vacation in AND which is a good investment that can be sold for more in the future, is that poor stewardship? That’s a judgment call.
The better judgment, in my opinion, would be to research the candidate’s charitable giving. If the percentage given doesn’t satisfy you, that’s a much more valid reason for criticism than the size of their bank account.
Now, for me, one of the deciding factors would be if I found out that a wealthy person had people in her immediate family or circle of friends who needed help and didn’t provide it.
But as you can see, that’s a personal view. And that, to me, is the one true success of this dialog we’ve had – that you have come to admit that judgments like this are very personal decisions based on one’s own viewpoint.
That is correct. The argument still fails to account for context, interpretation, and contrary evidence.
The fact remains that your interpretation of one particular line of scripture, taken out of context, is not very well supported. It is outside of what the majority of people who call themselves Christian believe. It depends on a literal reading of parts of the bible which is not universally accepted. And to leap from that to atheism is just extremely poor logic.
Oh, I don’t know. I think #1 is more provocatively stated than #2, but I can’t say as the opinions expressed are all that different.
Noted, but there comes a point when the simple possession of wealth vastly beyond what one person might reasonably need signals poor stewardship. And let’s remember the passage in Luke that says flatly, without any reference to stewardship, “Woe to the wealthy, for they have had their reward.”
And again, this can be said to be a question of my interpretation of the scripture, though I balk a little at the word “my.” After all, it’s an interpretation that I think you agree with (with qualifications as noted), that Polycarp agrees with, that many Christian thinkers over the years have agreed with. It’s an interpretation that’s exceptionally well supported in the text, whereas the contrary interpretation – that wealth (or stewardship of wealth, if you like) is a matter of indifference – is very poorly supported.
Where does that leave us? Let’s be judgmental: let’s say for the sake of argument that John Edwards, with his $30 million fortune, is a a wealthy man or a bad steward, as you will, and therefore comes in for condemnation. Like the young man in Matthew, he’s unable to give all his money to the poor, and therefore goes away sad. So the key question is this: does that make him a sinner, or an atheist?
I say atheist, and here’s how I reckon: You would think, for a believing Christian, that nothing would be more important to him than his immortal soul. It’s the sort of thing a man would be very careful with, you’d suppose. But the wealthy man isn’t playing carefully with his immortal soul. He’s relying on a very chancy interpretation on Scripture. He’s playing dice, in other words. The safe thing for him to do would be to give everything to the poor, since he could hardly go wrong there. By holding onto his wealth, he’s facing bad odds, maybe even terrible odds.
Am I really to believe that somebody who valued his immortal soul would gamble with it so frivolously? I’m sorry, I just can’t believe that – it’s too absurd. It seems far, far likelier to me that Edwards, in his heart of hearts, doesn’t really believe, no matter how much he assures us he does. He’s a practical atheist, per the OP.
So let me ask you – how well does the Bible support the contrary view (i.e., that God is indifferent to your wealth, or to your stewardship of wealth)?