Rich

Jesuits are the worst of them, fucking snakes

>The entity that routinely fucks over most people even if they're a devout servant to his shenanigans
>Blessing anyone on a reliable enough basis for wealth to be a good indicator for prosperity

A rope will go more more easily through the eye of a needle than a man with money will go to heaven etc.

>Why did Jesus hate the rich?
Because the world wasn't even a little bit capitalist or meritocratic back then.

The rich were rich because they were the friends and family of those with political power. Most of them owned people like Jesus as slaves.

>Orthodox don't see wealth as something to be ashamed of

Not true at all, insofar as the major theologians of past ages have been concerned. Any of political treatises written by the cappadocian fathers cement a theological truth of the eastern tradition: to be a wealthy man is to steal from those beneath you.

"Who are the greedy? Those who are not satisfied with what suffices for their own needs. Who are the robbers? Those who take for themselves what rightfully belongs to everyone. And you, are you not greedy? Are you not a robber? The things you received in trust as a stewardship, have you not appropriated them for yourself? Is not the person who strips another of clothing called a thief? And those who do not clothe the naked when they have the power to do so, should they not be called the same? The bread you are holding back is for the hungry, the clothes you keep put away are for the naked, the shoes that are rotting away with disuse are for those who have none, the silver you keep buried in the earth is for the needy. You are thus guilty of injustice toward as many as you might have aided, and did not." St. Basil Magnus

" “The flow from one river-source brings richness to many a spreading plain; so the wealth of one household is enough to preserve multitudes of the poor, if only a grudging uncharitable heart does not fall like a stone to block the passage and thwart the stream." St. Gregory of Nyssa.

"Attend not to the law of the strong but to the law of the Creator. Help nature to the best of your ability, honor the freedom of creation, protect your species from dishonor, come to its aids in sickness, rescue it from poverty …. Seek to distinguish yourself from others only in your generosity. Be like gods to the poor, imitating God’s mercy. Humanity has nothing so much in common with God as the ability to do good.” Gregory of Nazinus.

>Merchants
Oyy veyy

Easier to be decadent/degenerate if you're rich. Hence the comment about camels and eyes of needles

A noblemen could have 15 bastards with about 9 different women and it never inconvenienced him because of wealth. The bastard's schooling and whatnot could still easily be taken care of. On the other hand, a if a peasant had a bastard he could be ruined and the kid would have an extremely hard life (this is still the case today, look at Blacks and lower class whites in America). Hence, it would be easier for a rich man--not being worried of the consequences-- to sin in that regard than a poor man. The same could be said with any other form of decadence. Being wealthy is basically living in a constant "near occasion of sin" to use Catholic lingo. Its not a bad thing in and of itself, though. A rich man could lead a virtuous life and use his wealth to give to charity and act as a leader in his community

inb4 you know who

The problem is 'sitting' on wealth.

The spice must flow

It is if you watch televangelists who want your money all day

Wealthy people and people in positions of power have a much higher chance to cause harm to others.
So it think it makes sense to place more suspecion on them and criticise the amassing of fortune and thus power in the hands of individuals.

>Isn't wealth a divine sign of the grace of God?
If you follow American Christianity™, it is.

>why does a slave untermensch religion have slave untermensch values?

One cannot be rich without being greedy.

Of course what is really being asked of men is to kill Isaac as god wills.
Meaning to favor all men over one's own, to forget about familial and tribal ties and treat everyone as if they were your closest kin so to speak which is why it is so hard.
The issue relies in the structure of family and friendship. To do as jesus asks is to become a minds, to be liek what we re here on Veeky Forums, anonymous minds sharing thoughts, with no personal ties.

It's better than selling out to the corporate machine.

He didn't. He recognized that wealth brings with it greater temptation, power, and capacity for self-righteousness and abuse. He also recognized that if you aren't willing to be parted with your wealth for the sake of Christ, you aren't truly one of his own.

>Isn't wealth a divine sign of the grace of God?
For the proponents of the Prosperity Gospel, yes. For non-crazy people, no.

False.

Churches are made for the glory of God, and most of that stuff is priceless art and architecture.

Being rich means hording wealth for yourself. That is the very definition of greed.

because material wealth is worthless, and the efforts, habits and mentalities necesary to aquire it lead away from god

Provided by whom? The Catholic Church gained the power/wealth to have all of that comissioned and brought to them through indulgences and tithing.

Stop trying to defend them, it's just embarrassing at this point.

This, earthly desires are meaningless when you you're faced with the eternity of bliss that is Heaven. At least, according to the Bible.

If you want to see the glory of God, look not to gold, jewels, domes, and fine glass. Look to a Man suffering and bleeding out on a wooden cross. Look to a fleshy infant covered in bodily fluids having just been born in an animals' feeding trough. Look to suffering. Look to ordinary bread and wine, which offer to you a broken body, and look to ordinary water, which offers you death and an identification with one Man's death. These are the means by which God has shown forth His glory.

He was an actual Christian, until the Ulster Scots (evil) ruined it.

They don't. The gathering of wealth for it's own sake is something that is considered to not be possible to do while living a Christian life, but people who are wealthy and give their money to good causes (as well as keeping plenty, obvious) are considered to be good people and worthy of respect.

Same as the Vatican spends almost all of its money that doesn't go to maintenance or paying priests salaries (Which are really low) on charity groups.

I don't see how any of this is saying to be ashamed of wealth. Yes, if you have wealth you don't use for practical purpose (that includes things like clothing and houses), it is robbery, but doesn't mean being well-to-do, in and of itself, was considered shameful. Poverty was always more spiritually beneficial, of course, and wealth where you do not use your position to aid those in need is a sin.

>Why did Jesus hate the rich?

Because if you're rich, you're rich for a reason. also, inherent to the system, for a person to be rich, 100 people have to be poor. Also, being rich is basically have a job where you work less, work less hard, and make more money, just because you're the guy who's in charge of the money.

>Isn't wealth a divine sign of the grace of God?

not even close to being true in any religion except for Hinduism, with their bullshit caste system. Wealth has no baring on how good a person is or how much grace God has given them.

>Nietzsche called Christianity slave morality for a reason.

Because he intentionally misunderstood it?

>Protestants think gold is sinful unless it's used for secular purposes
What are the gifts of the Magi?
What is the Ark of the Covenant?

Socialism 101

All three of these quotes outright say that one who does not use his wealth to help the poor is committing an unjust act.

>all protestants are prosperity gospel

Living in massive excess and having tons of money that you never touch is gluttony and greed in both the ancient and modern sense of the word.

That is the reality of Christianity

Ever wonder why Jesus never asked his disciples to build great wonders to him? He gave them bread and wine, and told them to "do this in remembrance of me." He did not lead an army, but submitted to death on the cross. He was not a Judaizer, and His Apostles condemned the Judaizers. He was crowned with thorns, not gold.

The Ark of the Covenant is not a model for the decoration of the churches in the same way that it is not appropriate to draw blood through sacrifice or circumcision in Christ's Church. There is a new covenant.

Did Christ ask for your gold, to the benefit of a glory he chose to reveal, not in ostentatious wealth but in suffering and humility? No. He DID command that you use your wealth to the benefit of your neighbor. He told you to drink His blood from the cup, not that you put it in a gold chalice. He told you to clothe the poor, and gold can do this. He modeled the explanation from all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself, but never once demanded that they be wrapped in gold and studded with jewels, and marched up and down a temple He never instituted for the new covenant people.

If you want to see the glory of God, you look to Christ. Christ revealed that glory in suffering, in taking on humanity, in being born of a woman, in being put to death through common execution, in rising again from the dead, promising, not a transcendence from the body, but the resurrection of the body. He did not leave this earth in a golden chariot, and did not leave behind monuments full of treasures. He left behind ordinary bread, ordinary wine, ordinary water, ordinary men to proclaim His Word, and a Church Militant to struggle and suffer and bear their crosses.

>Whilst it is true that he had ordained the shadows of the law for a time, and they had their function, which was to lead the people to the Lord Jesus Christ, now that we have the substance and the truth in him, we must forsake it all. We have an even stronger reason, therefore, to say that the Israel of God are not those who appear in great splendour before the eyes of men, but those who bear the true mark of God. For when the Papists speak to us of the church, they must include the Pope with his three crowns, and the bishops, who disguise themselves in order to act out their farce. They are like horned beasts, and everything about them glistens; the priests and the monks are among them and they too dazzle the eyes of the simple. This is what the church of God consists of according to the Papists: in pomp and frivolous, useless nonsense. What of the sacraments? No, they need this or that extra thing — in short, they have their own marks which seem quite acceptable to them.

>Yet we must look at the gospel. What do we find there? All simplicity. God does not want those who preach his Word and administer his sacraments to wear costumes or to make so many fanfares. Nor does he want the sacraments to be polluted by human inventions, because all these are worthless to God. Let us, therefore, retain the definition that Paul gives here of the true church, so that we are unmoved when people say to us, ‘Look, we have many beautiful things here.’ It is true, if we judge according to our natural senses, for we are carnal and earthly and are, therefore, more inclined to follow that which appears beautiful to our senses. But it is not for us to decide how we must serve God; we must hold fast to that which he has proclaimed, because his decree is irrevocable, and it is that we should find all our wisdom in Jesus Christ.

>The rich were rich because they were the friends and family of those with political power.
>even a little bit capitalist or meritocratic back then.
Top kek, what a delusion. There were meritocratic rises to power back then, and there are still those who are rich due to nepotism one way or the other today.

World is not fair, and it was never fair. Don't think you have it much better than the ancients.