The next two verses seem to be the most important:
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
The disciples here seem to be implying everyone is rich with their “who then can be saved”. Jesus’ reply that it is God’s possibility over man’s impossibility seems to agree that everyone is rich.
While it is comforting to think that evangelicals should focus more on their own in Fallwell , Robinson, Dobson (etc) along with Gates and Rowlings (etc) because they are rich, it is not really practical. Most people that the average evangelical Christian runs into, for one-on-one evangelism, are not among the super-rich.
However, how happy would many on this board be if evangelical Christians spent the next 5 years trying to convent only the super-rich, and were successful with only 15% of their target audience? From lurking here in GD it seems to me that many here would be rather upset with programs and candidate that very rich evangelical Christians would fund.
As I see it in the New Testement Jesus didn’t command any one to make converts, just to tell the Good news, which was the Gospel of salvation, not force their particular views on any one, nor did he make it a command to convert what some would call sinners.
Because someone is Rich and thinks differently doesn’t mean they need converting.
I was under the impression that Faith was a gift from God, so if they do not have the gift,should one try to force God to give it to them?
Practical? What does practical mean to God for Whom all things are possible?
I don’t think the super-rich are necessarily the prime target, although they are a worth one. And there are many everywhere who could benefit from being made unhappy long enough to become dissatisfied with the existing injustices. What matter if people are unhappy in the short term if souls are saved? And it seems to me that a lot of time is spend by evangelists in preaching to a large audience, few of whom are converted so a 15% rate doesn’t sound too bad to me.
It just so happened that I got to wondering why the prominent evangelicals had overlooked, or were ignoring, this rather glaring example of those whose souls are endangered by an excess of material possessions. I thought perhaps a discussion here would give me an answer to that question.
It appears that many, perhaps most of the homeless have mental illnesses which make it difficult to help them. Though there are a few others. A number of people have tried to help by offering the homeless jobs and opportunities and found a great lack of willing takers.
I’ve also met a number of homeless who seemed to enjoy the life. I shared what I had, if I had much of anything (Note: I often didn’t). Ive even shared with con artists, knowing they were con artists.
But you don’t need to convince me. You need to convince the homeless to sign up to let you help them. You might need to convince the electorate that you have a practical program that will do some good.
Well, it does seem to me that if the evangelicals could get the rich, and not just the super-rich, infused with the spirit of the Savior the problems would be solved. With their obvious talents (how else could they get rich?) they would come up with solutions to the homeless, the mentally ill and so on without relying on the input suggestions from the users of SDMB.
For example, maybe with such a spirit inside them they would see the self-defeating nature of squeezing the working people out of every possible penny in pay and benefits. An article aboutthe squeeze on US labor alarms me. I think this trend, if it continues, will also affect Europe, Japan and all industrial nations’ labor relations.
Huge corporations that turn out their product by the millions need a mass market. The workers in Bangladesh who make products for the US market can’t afford those products. If workers world-wide approach anywhere near the income level of the workers in Bangladesh, where will the mass market come from?
Business schools don’t seem be getting across any message other than “work like hell to make this quarter’s profit big so you can get a bonus and retire.” Maybe it’s time for some new approach such as one via the evangelicals. I’m not holding my breath waiting for it, you understand, but our present system sure doesn’t do a very good job of distributing widely such benefits as are available.
The statements are pretty straightforward to me. That’s one I would assume is to be taken litterally (though it’s of course ignored by the overwhelming majority of christians). It seems to be quite in agreement to the teachings of Jesus acording to the gospels. Why would someone seeking the rewards of God’s kingdom hold on material wealth? It makes a lot of sense in the context, besides being straightforward. And many a moral teacher taught to renounce to wealth, besides Jesus.
So, why do you assume that ** of course ** it’s an hyperbole?
Essentially al of us are very wealthy by comparison with a number of third world countries where you might well starve. We’re aware of it, and have all the means to give our wealth to these people. So, really poor people are as accessible to us as they were to Jesus disciples. So, your staement doesn’t adress the issue. Anyway, even just looking around, you could probably find homeless people you could house, for instance.
