Originally posted by Rajk999
A defender of Catholic priests now?

There are different guidelines for leaders because they need to set an example..

Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, [b]not given to filthy lucre ..[/b]

What about King Solomon, he was fabulously wealthy.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your car would feed many people for a long time. Wealth is relative. My question to you, is why you see a Church official as morally wrong, whereas you see nothing wrong with owning a car yourself.

By owning a car, I as a 70 year old am keeping our household together because I have a very long commute, kids still at home, grandkids still live here, I think perhaps its ok if I drive to work to keep from losing our home.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What about King Solomon, he was fabulously wealthy.

And he had around 1,000 wives and concubines.
And he fell into the trap of worshiping the gods of the heathens.
And ... whats is your point ?

My point as always, is that Christians need to stop being hypocrites and preach and teach the doctrines of Christ. Certainly not everyone can follow Christ, it but there must be that emphasis on a Christ-like lifestyle.

Originally posted by Rajk999
And he had around 1,000 wives and concubines.
And he fell into the trap of worshiping the gods of the heathens.
And ... whats is your point ?

My point as always, is that Christians need to stop being hypocrites and preach and teach the doctrines of Christ. Certainly not everyone can follow Christ, it but there must be that emphasis on a Christ-like lifestyle.

my point is that he was fabulously wealthy and God used him in a mighty way, he only
fell into pagan worship latterly and not because of his wealth but the influence of his
wives.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my point is that he was fabulously wealthy and God used him in a mighty way, he only
fell into pagan worship latterly and not because of his wealth but the influence of his
wives.

Well there's a bizarre contradiction then, Jesus is quite specific on the rich in the Gospels yet God felt it was appropriate to use Solomon in a 'might way' even though he was fabulously wealthy.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Well there's a bizarre contradiction then, Jesus is quite specific on the rich in the Gospels yet God felt it was appropriate to use Solomon in a 'might way' even though he was fabulously wealthy.

yes, if you read the account about Solomon he describes riches as being purely a
vanity, although he does state that they offer a degree of relative protection, the rich
young man by way of contrast loved his riches more than anything, thus we get to the
truth of the matter, its not having or not having, its the emphasis one places on
acquiring and keeping riches. Its not a contradiction, but a wonderful example of how
the Bible helps one to get a balanced view of such things.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, if you read the account about Solomon he describes riches as being purely a
vanity, although he does state that they offer a degree of relative protection, the rich
young man by way of contrast loved his riches more than anything, thus we get to the
truth of the matter, its not having or not having, its the emphasis one places on
acquirin ...[text shortened]... ion, but a wonderful example of how
the Bible helps one to get a balanced view of such things.

It's a contradiction, no amount of waffle will change that.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What about it?

Would a Christian wearing a $10 watch be in in direct opposition to the piece of scripture quoted?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
It's a contradiction, no amount of waffle will change that.

plueeeze, such a balanced view can only be good.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Would a Christian wearing a $10 watch be in in direct opposition to the piece of scripture quoted?

Where do they live?

Originally posted by Rajk999
A defender of Catholic priests now?

Not necessarily. I am not saying he is right to wear the watch. I am saying you are a hypocrite for criticizing him unless you can claim to be better.

There are different guidelines for leaders because they need to set an example.
I agree. But only the people being lead have the right to set those guidelines, and it is better when they do the criticizing. He is not your leader. I am merely questioning why you hold him to a higher standard than the average Christian.
Is poverty a teaching of the Catholic Church? Are you Catholic?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
plueeeze, such a balanced view can only be good.

Balanced? Jesus was quite explicit about the rich, and here you are stating riches due to vanity is okay.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Balanced? Jesus was quite explicit about the rich, and here you are stating riches due to vanity is okay.

The young man did not stand condemned because he possessed riches, he stood
condemned because they meant more to him than being a follower of Christ, in
other words, it was the emphasis that he put on getting and attaining riches, not
possessing the riches themselves which was his mistake, Here is the Bibles wise
counsel in this regard,

(Proverbs 11:28) . . .The one trusting in his riches—he himself will fall; but just like
foliage the righteous ones will flourish

(Proverbs 30:8) . . .Give me neither poverty nor riches.. . .

(1 Timothy 6:7-8) . . .For we have brought nothing into the world, and neither can
we carry anything out.  So, having sustenance and covering, we shall be content
with these things.

Originally posted by sonhouse
By owning a car, I as a 70 year old am keeping our household together because I have a very long commute, kids still at home, grandkids still live here, I think perhaps its ok if I drive to work to keep from losing our home.

At 68, the Lord has blessed me with total retirement, a good wife, who has given
me five wonderful children, three cars, two houses, and the money to buy all
the food and drink we could ever want to eat and drink. Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by sonhouse
By owning a car, I as a 70 year old am keeping our household together because I have a very long commute, kids still at home, grandkids still live here, I think perhaps its ok if I drive to work to keep from losing our home.

You are nevertheless richer than many other people in the world and have what many people would consider a luxury item. I come from a country where life expectancy is about 40, and most of my friends from high school will never drive a car in their lives.
At what point do we say 'this is essential' and therefore justified, whereas that (watch for example) is a luxury item that would be better sold to feed the hungry?

I am trying to point out that it is very hard to criticize others for over indulgence unless we can honestly say that we do not indulge at all our selves. I am also saying that wealth is relative. From your point of view, that pope is over indulging. From my point of view, almost all Americans are over indulging. When we see Americans on tv moaning about the economy and how they might have to sell that second car we think 'spoilt brats'.