Jesus says in Matthew 6 that we shouldn't build up treasure for ourselves on earth. Everyday 30,000 children die from poverty related causes. If a Christian buys a 40,000 dollar Lexus instead of a 20,000 dollar car, that is 20,000 extra dollars spent on the luxury of car, when the money could be better used to save the lives of our dying brothers and sisters in other parts of the world. Here are 2 simple scriptural proofs for the truth of my claim:
1.
Jesus said, "when you did it not for the least of my brothers, you did it not for me"
If Jesus were starving to death would a Christian sell their 40,000 dollar Lexus and choose a simpler car instead in order to buy Jesus some food so he could survie? If yes, then why don't we do it for others who are starving to death?
2.
The bible says the love of money is the root of all evil. The bible also says that if we don't love others than we don't love Christ. If as Christians we believe these two statements in the Bible, how can we keep spending money to buy ourselves luxuries(if we don't love the money), and not spend the money to save those who are dying from poverty(who we supposedly love)?
I conclude that most Christians don't want to think about or follow what Jesus and the Bible teaches about wealth. It is a hard teaching to follow and the world tells us that we should make as much money for ourselves as possible. This wordly wisdom is foolishness in the eyes of God, true happiness and contentment are to be found in Him alone, and we should be good stewards of the wealth God has given us, using it to save others before we use it on luxuries for ourselves.
Christians shouldn't own Lexuses
Moderator: Moderators
-
Bigphilly82
- Student
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:26 am
Post #4
It's like so many artists (musical and otherwise) who all say they are Christians but buy themselves luxurious.. and I mean LUXURIOUS items.. Like necklaces and cars and these HUMONGOUS houses and the like.
It is <i>their</i> money, but still, God isn't asking us to be Mother Teresa or anything.. But going out of your way to make yourself feel and look good is perhaps, very sinful.
I don't think this just pertains to Christains, but to humans in general.
It is <i>their</i> money, but still, God isn't asking us to be Mother Teresa or anything.. But going out of your way to make yourself feel and look good is perhaps, very sinful.
I don't think this just pertains to Christains, but to humans in general.
Post #8
But isn't there an extent to which Jesus also said something along the lines of "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face". What's the point in doing yourself out of essential things just to help others?
I realise that this isn't really what has been said in this thread, but I just thought I'd clarify the issue. Christians aren't meant to give up what they have and need, but rather, what they have but could afford to do without. You don't need to deny yourself the essentials, but perhaps the Lexus is a bit over the top.
Is there anything in the Bible about the Popemobile?
I realise that this isn't really what has been said in this thread, but I just thought I'd clarify the issue. Christians aren't meant to give up what they have and need, but rather, what they have but could afford to do without. You don't need to deny yourself the essentials, but perhaps the Lexus is a bit over the top.
Is there anything in the Bible about the Popemobile?
-
Fallibleone
- Guru
- Posts: 1935
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:35 am
- Location: Scouseland
Post #9
Well what do human beings acually 'need'? Food, water, shelter, clothing, yes. Transport? OK. Your own car? I suppose it depends on the state of public transport in your area and your level of mobility. A luxury car? I would say no.
If you go without essential things just to help others, you won't be helping them for long, because you will die of starvation, dehydration, exposure, etc.
I see the idea of going without in order to help others a commendable one, but I would argue that none of us are exempt from responsibility in this area. Christians have this obligation in writing, though, and this means that it could be argued that if they fail to comply, they are not fulfilling a requirement of their faith.
I suppose that Catholics would argue that the expense of the Popemobile is an allowable one, because it is essential that the leader of their faith be protected from those wishing to do him harm. I'm not so sure what the justification might be for hoarding all those works of art, antiques, all that money and whatever else they've got squirrelled away in there though.
Be gentle with me, this is my first tentative toe-dipping into the pool of debating here.
If you go without essential things just to help others, you won't be helping them for long, because you will die of starvation, dehydration, exposure, etc.
I see the idea of going without in order to help others a commendable one, but I would argue that none of us are exempt from responsibility in this area. Christians have this obligation in writing, though, and this means that it could be argued that if they fail to comply, they are not fulfilling a requirement of their faith.
I suppose that Catholics would argue that the expense of the Popemobile is an allowable one, because it is essential that the leader of their faith be protected from those wishing to do him harm. I'm not so sure what the justification might be for hoarding all those works of art, antiques, all that money and whatever else they've got squirrelled away in there though.
Be gentle with me, this is my first tentative toe-dipping into the pool of debating here.
Post #10
Luke 18:22 wrote:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
In today's world, there are very few places, where people would allow you to starve to death, even Bobby Sands had to try really hard to accomplish that.Fallibleone wrote: Well what do human beings actually 'need'? Food, water, shelter, clothing, yes. Transport? OK. Your own car? I suppose it depends on the state of public transport in your area and your level of mobility. A luxury car? I would say no.
If you go without essential things just to help others, you won't be helping them for long, because you will die of starvation, dehydration, exposure, etc.
But if you do what Jesus asked, you will indeed have treasure in heaven, but you will have a bit of a rough life here and now.
But, just because you are not going to go overboard on the giving, you can make up for it by doing lots of small things as your budget allows, and as Jesus says...
Mark 9:41 wrote: 41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
True, if all the Christians in the world fulfilled this one, the Kingdom of God would be in the here and now.Fallibleone wrote: I see the idea of going without in order to help others a commendable one, but I would argue that none of us are exempt from responsibility in this area. Christians have this obligation in writing, though, and this means that it could be argued that if they fail to comply, they are not fulfilling a requirement of their faith.
If the Pope can't trust God to keep him safe in the here and now, as well as eternity, then let him have his Popemobile. As for all the works of art and antiques, let them be held in trust for future generations, I would want my grandson to be able to see true artifacts from many generations past.Fallibleone wrote: I suppose that Catholics would argue that the expense of the Popemobile is an allowable one, because it is essential that the leader of their faith be protected from those wishing to do him harm. I'm not so sure what the justification might be for hoarding all those works of art, antiques, all that money and whatever else they've got squirreled away in there though.
It may have taken a long time for someone to respond to your first splash in this pool, I just hope that it was gentle enough.Fallibleone wrote: Be gentle with me, this is my first tentative toe-dipping into the pool of debating here.
