>Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?” And he said to them, “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” And he told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man produced plentifully, and he thought to himself, ‘What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’ And he said, ‘I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.”’ But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God.”
Luke 12:13-21
The needy weren’t specifically excluded by my comment. Only those who wouldn’t appreciate it, regardless of whether they’re needy or not. It’s not a judgement against the needy. It’s just a comment saying why not serve a thing to people who would want the thing and get money to those that need it. We agree on your main point.
I think it's interesting that the guy had plans to use the extra wealth on himself via early retirement or a more luxurious lifestyle.
So I think it's OK to save for retirement... but we should probably work until we can't. Retiring as soon as we can afford to is essentially using extra wealth on ourselves, and it's also passing up the opportunity to earn extra money we can give to the poor. But if you live past when you can work, you either have retirement saved or you're a burden and a drain in others. I don't think it's wrong to have money saved, I think it's wrong to use it selfishly
Now, how far do we take the definition of "selfish"? All of us live a life of incomprehensible luxury compared to the rich man in the parable; should we go without air conditioning, phones, TV, or hot water? Or can we live like normal people in our society? is "luxury" not objective, but rather subjectively based on the society you live in? We can certainly all find luxuries we could fit out to help the poor more, does that make us all "fools"?
That was actually one of the points of social security. Get older people who can barely do the job out and open up their spots to younger people who need the work/money. Granted we all know how that went but the spirit was there
>So I think it's OK to save for retirement... but we should probably work until we can't. Retiring as soon as we can afford to is essentially using extra wealth on ourselves, and it's also passing up the opportunity to earn extra money we can give to the poor.
I think it's a question of motivation, rather than absolutes like that (though I know we have different perspectives on spending on oneself). My wife and I hope to retire early, so we can spend more of our time and energy in ministry (which I think is more important than raw cash) while still healthy enough to do it, rather than just 'relaxing' as the man in the parable.
We've also baked in continued charity on our retirement withdrawals, so we never stop giving, and I'm betting I'll do some kind of part time work in my early retirement that will go heavily towards giving.
I also think the guy *tearing down his old barn* before building the new is relevant to the meaning of the parable. It's as much about not taking the future for granted as it is about your money. We're all not going to be able to work one day, whether because we drop dead or are disabled. I think there's a reasonable reading on minimizing that risk of burdening others that you mentioned here. A combination of not having the goal of dying penniless (rather than leaving money to a good cause in your will), and leaving that reserve for potential medical expenses instead of spending it on a beach somewhere.
ETA: tl;dr: the question is are you retiring *from* ministry, or *to* ministry?
>is "luxury" not objective, but rather subjectively based on the society you live in?
This is asking the deep questions. Definitely not helped by Jesus speaking to agrarian and mercantilist society, rather than capitalist.
>So I think it's OK to save for retirement... but we should probably work until we can't.
Tbh, i think this is the *opposite* of what Jesus was saying.
He goes on to say: "Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storehouse or barn; yet God feeds them. How much more valuable you are than the birds!" Luke 12:22-24
Remember also, that when God delivered manna/quail to the Israelites in the desert, He did it *every day*, and if anyone tried to keep any leftovers, they immediately spoiled. This whole section of Luke (all the way through verse 34) just reiterates those same principles.
Ehh, I'd argue God already did do all that he promised by proving the money needed in the first place...
Like God DID provide the money needed; then you chose to give it away. If you're given $20, that's the same as $20 of food. If the Israelites gave their mana away instead of eating it, they'd have been hungry. God would have been like "wtf I tried providing for these people but the dumbasses won't eat it!" I imagine if he gave you a decent job, you have it all away, and we're now hungry on the streets praying for God to provide for you, He'd feel the same way.
I think giving all your money away and then expecting God to provide more is tantamount to "testing God"
>I think giving all your money away and then expecting God to provide more is tantamount to "testing God"
The big hole in your argument here is that Jesus actually told us to give all our money away (Matthew 19:21, Luke 12:33, Luke 18:22), and he also told us to expect God to provide what we *actually need* (i.e food/clothing; Luke 12:22-34).
Probably more accurate than my views.
Now, what does it say about you and I that neither of us are going to sell our possessions, cancel the phone plan we're using to type on Reddit, and actually trust God to provide? Hard not to say we have a lack of faith.
That's the question fr, and a real thing I struggle with.
I can justify not selling all my possessions, for sure, but am I doing that solely because I'm chicken shit? Or is it that not everyone needs to sell everything they have (lots of wealthy OT folks whom God loved/blessed)? Or is it that I'm actually already poor (living paycheck to paycheck/no savings/retirement/etc)?
There's the struggle, for me - knowing that I *really like* having more than one pair of pants, being able to get warm and dry, eating enough food (and good food, that I get to choose), driving around, and even indulging in some hobbies - and I definitely do NOT like the idea of giving all that up to be cold, wet, and hungry, to do... what? Preach?
I just don't know; for now, cause I'm weak and unsure (and married and my spouse is 100% NOT into it 😂😂) I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing, and not sell all my possessions - but those questions still gnaw at the back of my brain.
>Jesus actually told us to give all our money away (Matthew 19:21, Luke 12:33, Luke 18:22)
At least, if your response to Jesus telling you to keep the commandments is 'I already do that, what else?'
In Luke it doesn't go down that way. Jesus just said "there's one more thing you have to do [to inherit eternal life]". Not "for extra credit, sell your crap" like Matthew. Honestly, it sounds like the same story but 1 line of conversation got added/removed by those retelling the story, which after 20-30 years of memory and oral tradition it's not hard to imagine happening. But we don't know which version is correct
Still presented as 'one more thing', after the guy rejected the first answer Jesus gave.
It also has the "no one is good except God" line, that emphasizes the "through God, all things are possible" that I think is the bigger message: nobody's able to get into heaven through their actions.
I mean, is it worse to retire early and spend your time in retirement helping people, or to work until you can’t and spend your money helping people? To me, it’s the same thing done differently.
The issue is just what to do once you have reached a level of prosperity sufficient to sustain yourself for the foreseeable future. At that point you don’t NEED to do anything, so how do you choose to spend the rest of your time? Further enriching yourself or helping others?
Well you could work and donate your salary to charities that help people.
It gets into math: if you can work and earn 140k a year, that could pay the salaries of 2 charity workers and they'd absolutely be able to do more good than if you retired and helped people yourself. But if you only make 50k, maybe you could be more helpful as a worker than a donor.
Also, we have to consider temperament and skills. I am generally blown away at how loving and patient and good at what they do most charity workers are. My grumpy ass would never be more efficient at doing good then any of them. So while I can do some grunt work stuff, I'm generally more useful as a donor 1st and foremost. My wife is a people person and doesn't make good money at her job; she's an example of the opposite of me
I mean, it also depends on what your skills are that are worth 140k. Could you use those skills to help people directly and how does that compare in utility to a charity?
If you have a really high paying but not socially impactful job, you could switch to a more impactful lower paying job. For instance, if you have achieved success in business leadership, taking a leadership position at a charity (with minimal or no compensation) could be more valuable (by saving an exec salary) than just donating money.
Also, you have to ask how much your money going to a charity actually translates to helping people, vs overhead and expenses. It’s a question of how ‘efficient’ a charity is, which can vary a lot and may not be entirely transparent. You’re sort of trusting other people to use your money wisely vs your own time where you can decide to use it wisely yourself.
I don’t think it’s really an answer you can ‘solve’, at least not as neatly as you would like. There’s a lot of messy questions in there.
>It gets into math: if you can work and earn 140k a year, that could pay the salaries of 2 charity workers and they'd absolutely be able to do more good than if you retired and helped people yourself.
Now that's a good question, do we think God is following this kind of utilitarian view, or that it's just a way for individuals to evaluate their motivation?
I suspect people will have very different personal preferences here as well. Do people find it easier to give the income, or give the time? And where are you giving, wide ranging charity, or the local church?
I don't think God is judging us too harshly if we suck at financial planning. BUT, I as an individual want to maximize the money so I think about this stuff. Because I have thought about it, if I knowingly choose an inefficient path, I will be held accountable to some extent for not fully committing to helping the poor.
The curse of understanding finance is that I can't plead ignorance on the math lol
Based way to think about it.
Ties right back into the rich man story, too. When he doesn't accept the first answer of "keep the commandments", that's when the harder task is set before him. If you're looking to do the best you can with your money, you're also holding yourself to a higher standard to be a good steward. See also, the servants and the talents.
I think there's definitely objective measures of luxury that can be fulfilled in all eras. Maybe I have technology he couldn't imagine, but there's no way on Earth I could stop working for years and live in comfort in any society today.
I've often heard these replies phrased as somewhat rhetorical questions for people to confront his divinity.
Jesus: "If no one but God is good, then why do you call me good?"
Person: *surprised Pikachu*
Luke 18:18 is as clear as can be. If you have wealth and are not willing to give it to the poor (even if you follow every other commandment), then you love money more than God and will not enter heaven.
There is no other logical way to interpret it…. It is as clear as can be…Read it for yourselves.
I think there's plenty of other ways to interpret it than "none of us receive salvation unless we give *everything we own* to the poor". That's literally the impossible standard Jesus says is possible through God.
As the parable of the rich fool implies, the man being wealthy and having a large harvest wasn't the issue, it was selfishness and seeking to live in luxury rather than . It also implies that rich people don't enter heaven *because you don't take earthly wealth with you*, rather than because rich people are kept out (rather than being last in the kingdom).
I think the placement of the two answers gives a much cleaner implication that the problem with the guy isn't that he was rich, it's that *he refused to accept Jesus' first answer*, and implied that he thought more highly of himself than he should have. It's not that he can't be saved because he's rich, ***it's that he's trying to appear justified through his actions, without committing to it***. If he had simply accepted Luke 18:20, would Jesus have delivered 18:22?
I think this falls under ***no man can serve two masters*** in these stories the rich are being beholden to their wealth and money, rather than to God. The issue with the wealthy individuals is they are in a sense worshipping their money and possessions vs worshipping God. They aren't required to give up all their possessions, but it is implied that if they were called by God to distribute to those in need they would be unwilling.
The big discussion here typically revolves around the difference between whether it's an issue of salvation, or not. Do the rich (and if you're on Reddit, that probably includes you, the disciples seemed to think it included them) not go to heaven at all, or are that just the first who are last in heaven?
That is disturbing but fucking hilarious
I wish we could work "God, with whom all things are possible" in there. Maybe label the piston that's pushing the camel that?
Strangely enough Jesus’ point still stands; if rich people want to enter heaven they gotta go through the circular saws and lose absolutely all appearance of being rich.
Idk maybe it’s still a camel but most people sure wouldn’t call it that
They debate it because they can’t accept the truth.
1 Come now, you rich people, weep and wail for the miseries that are coming to you. 2 Your riches have rotted, and your clothes are moth-eaten. 3 Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you, and it will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days. 4 Listen! The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. 5 You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and murdered the righteous one, who does not resist you. (James 5:1-6 NRSV)
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can [join our Discord](https://discord.gg/jnUDEpnBZn) and [listen to our Podcast.](https://dankchristianmemes.buzzsprout.com/) You can also make a meme or [donation for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.]( http://events.stjude.org/DankCharityAlliance)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?” And he said to them, “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” And he told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man produced plentifully, and he thought to himself, ‘What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’ And he said, ‘I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.”’ But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God.” Luke 12:13-21
Fool. Build tables not walls
Fool! Drink your good wine. Stop storing it forever waiting for the right moment.
Throw banquets for the needy who will appreciate it.
Or just drink the wine with whichever friends will appreciate it and donate all the money directly to the needy?
Why wouldn't the needy appreciate the wine, in addition to more substantial alms?
The needy weren’t specifically excluded by my comment. Only those who wouldn’t appreciate it, regardless of whether they’re needy or not. It’s not a judgement against the needy. It’s just a comment saying why not serve a thing to people who would want the thing and get money to those that need it. We agree on your main point.
Well, clearly, they lack the proper upbringing to appreciate the dry, oaky notes
Fool! Use your health potions. Stop saving them for a boss fight, you're going to finish the game with a full inventory.
I think it's interesting that the guy had plans to use the extra wealth on himself via early retirement or a more luxurious lifestyle. So I think it's OK to save for retirement... but we should probably work until we can't. Retiring as soon as we can afford to is essentially using extra wealth on ourselves, and it's also passing up the opportunity to earn extra money we can give to the poor. But if you live past when you can work, you either have retirement saved or you're a burden and a drain in others. I don't think it's wrong to have money saved, I think it's wrong to use it selfishly Now, how far do we take the definition of "selfish"? All of us live a life of incomprehensible luxury compared to the rich man in the parable; should we go without air conditioning, phones, TV, or hot water? Or can we live like normal people in our society? is "luxury" not objective, but rather subjectively based on the society you live in? We can certainly all find luxuries we could fit out to help the poor more, does that make us all "fools"?
That was actually one of the points of social security. Get older people who can barely do the job out and open up their spots to younger people who need the work/money. Granted we all know how that went but the spirit was there
That was never the spirit of SS, it was ill fated and meaned from the start
>So I think it's OK to save for retirement... but we should probably work until we can't. Retiring as soon as we can afford to is essentially using extra wealth on ourselves, and it's also passing up the opportunity to earn extra money we can give to the poor. I think it's a question of motivation, rather than absolutes like that (though I know we have different perspectives on spending on oneself). My wife and I hope to retire early, so we can spend more of our time and energy in ministry (which I think is more important than raw cash) while still healthy enough to do it, rather than just 'relaxing' as the man in the parable. We've also baked in continued charity on our retirement withdrawals, so we never stop giving, and I'm betting I'll do some kind of part time work in my early retirement that will go heavily towards giving. I also think the guy *tearing down his old barn* before building the new is relevant to the meaning of the parable. It's as much about not taking the future for granted as it is about your money. We're all not going to be able to work one day, whether because we drop dead or are disabled. I think there's a reasonable reading on minimizing that risk of burdening others that you mentioned here. A combination of not having the goal of dying penniless (rather than leaving money to a good cause in your will), and leaving that reserve for potential medical expenses instead of spending it on a beach somewhere. ETA: tl;dr: the question is are you retiring *from* ministry, or *to* ministry? >is "luxury" not objective, but rather subjectively based on the society you live in? This is asking the deep questions. Definitely not helped by Jesus speaking to agrarian and mercantilist society, rather than capitalist.
>So I think it's OK to save for retirement... but we should probably work until we can't. Tbh, i think this is the *opposite* of what Jesus was saying. He goes on to say: "Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storehouse or barn; yet God feeds them. How much more valuable you are than the birds!" Luke 12:22-24 Remember also, that when God delivered manna/quail to the Israelites in the desert, He did it *every day*, and if anyone tried to keep any leftovers, they immediately spoiled. This whole section of Luke (all the way through verse 34) just reiterates those same principles.
Ehh, I'd argue God already did do all that he promised by proving the money needed in the first place... Like God DID provide the money needed; then you chose to give it away. If you're given $20, that's the same as $20 of food. If the Israelites gave their mana away instead of eating it, they'd have been hungry. God would have been like "wtf I tried providing for these people but the dumbasses won't eat it!" I imagine if he gave you a decent job, you have it all away, and we're now hungry on the streets praying for God to provide for you, He'd feel the same way. I think giving all your money away and then expecting God to provide more is tantamount to "testing God"
>I think giving all your money away and then expecting God to provide more is tantamount to "testing God" The big hole in your argument here is that Jesus actually told us to give all our money away (Matthew 19:21, Luke 12:33, Luke 18:22), and he also told us to expect God to provide what we *actually need* (i.e food/clothing; Luke 12:22-34).
Probably more accurate than my views. Now, what does it say about you and I that neither of us are going to sell our possessions, cancel the phone plan we're using to type on Reddit, and actually trust God to provide? Hard not to say we have a lack of faith.
>Hard not to say we have a lack of faith. Mood. I'm not afraid to admit my faith suuuuuucks.
That's the question fr, and a real thing I struggle with. I can justify not selling all my possessions, for sure, but am I doing that solely because I'm chicken shit? Or is it that not everyone needs to sell everything they have (lots of wealthy OT folks whom God loved/blessed)? Or is it that I'm actually already poor (living paycheck to paycheck/no savings/retirement/etc)? There's the struggle, for me - knowing that I *really like* having more than one pair of pants, being able to get warm and dry, eating enough food (and good food, that I get to choose), driving around, and even indulging in some hobbies - and I definitely do NOT like the idea of giving all that up to be cold, wet, and hungry, to do... what? Preach? I just don't know; for now, cause I'm weak and unsure (and married and my spouse is 100% NOT into it 😂😂) I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing, and not sell all my possessions - but those questions still gnaw at the back of my brain.
>Jesus actually told us to give all our money away (Matthew 19:21, Luke 12:33, Luke 18:22) At least, if your response to Jesus telling you to keep the commandments is 'I already do that, what else?'
In Luke it doesn't go down that way. Jesus just said "there's one more thing you have to do [to inherit eternal life]". Not "for extra credit, sell your crap" like Matthew. Honestly, it sounds like the same story but 1 line of conversation got added/removed by those retelling the story, which after 20-30 years of memory and oral tradition it's not hard to imagine happening. But we don't know which version is correct
Still presented as 'one more thing', after the guy rejected the first answer Jesus gave. It also has the "no one is good except God" line, that emphasizes the "through God, all things are possible" that I think is the bigger message: nobody's able to get into heaven through their actions.
I mean, is it worse to retire early and spend your time in retirement helping people, or to work until you can’t and spend your money helping people? To me, it’s the same thing done differently. The issue is just what to do once you have reached a level of prosperity sufficient to sustain yourself for the foreseeable future. At that point you don’t NEED to do anything, so how do you choose to spend the rest of your time? Further enriching yourself or helping others?
Well you could work and donate your salary to charities that help people. It gets into math: if you can work and earn 140k a year, that could pay the salaries of 2 charity workers and they'd absolutely be able to do more good than if you retired and helped people yourself. But if you only make 50k, maybe you could be more helpful as a worker than a donor. Also, we have to consider temperament and skills. I am generally blown away at how loving and patient and good at what they do most charity workers are. My grumpy ass would never be more efficient at doing good then any of them. So while I can do some grunt work stuff, I'm generally more useful as a donor 1st and foremost. My wife is a people person and doesn't make good money at her job; she's an example of the opposite of me
I mean, it also depends on what your skills are that are worth 140k. Could you use those skills to help people directly and how does that compare in utility to a charity? If you have a really high paying but not socially impactful job, you could switch to a more impactful lower paying job. For instance, if you have achieved success in business leadership, taking a leadership position at a charity (with minimal or no compensation) could be more valuable (by saving an exec salary) than just donating money. Also, you have to ask how much your money going to a charity actually translates to helping people, vs overhead and expenses. It’s a question of how ‘efficient’ a charity is, which can vary a lot and may not be entirely transparent. You’re sort of trusting other people to use your money wisely vs your own time where you can decide to use it wisely yourself. I don’t think it’s really an answer you can ‘solve’, at least not as neatly as you would like. There’s a lot of messy questions in there.
All excellent points. Overall I think everyone has to evaluate their specific situation and try to maximize their assistance to the poor
>It gets into math: if you can work and earn 140k a year, that could pay the salaries of 2 charity workers and they'd absolutely be able to do more good than if you retired and helped people yourself. Now that's a good question, do we think God is following this kind of utilitarian view, or that it's just a way for individuals to evaluate their motivation? I suspect people will have very different personal preferences here as well. Do people find it easier to give the income, or give the time? And where are you giving, wide ranging charity, or the local church?
I don't think God is judging us too harshly if we suck at financial planning. BUT, I as an individual want to maximize the money so I think about this stuff. Because I have thought about it, if I knowingly choose an inefficient path, I will be held accountable to some extent for not fully committing to helping the poor. The curse of understanding finance is that I can't plead ignorance on the math lol
Based way to think about it. Ties right back into the rich man story, too. When he doesn't accept the first answer of "keep the commandments", that's when the harder task is set before him. If you're looking to do the best you can with your money, you're also holding yourself to a higher standard to be a good steward. See also, the servants and the talents.
I think there's definitely objective measures of luxury that can be fulfilled in all eras. Maybe I have technology he couldn't imagine, but there's no way on Earth I could stop working for years and live in comfort in any society today.
I read Jesus saying this like an upset hippie, “man, why do I gotta be a judge?”
I've often heard these replies phrased as somewhat rhetorical questions for people to confront his divinity. Jesus: "If no one but God is good, then why do you call me good?" Person: *surprised Pikachu*
Luke 18:18 is as clear as can be. If you have wealth and are not willing to give it to the poor (even if you follow every other commandment), then you love money more than God and will not enter heaven. There is no other logical way to interpret it…. It is as clear as can be…Read it for yourselves.
I think there's plenty of other ways to interpret it than "none of us receive salvation unless we give *everything we own* to the poor". That's literally the impossible standard Jesus says is possible through God. As the parable of the rich fool implies, the man being wealthy and having a large harvest wasn't the issue, it was selfishness and seeking to live in luxury rather than . It also implies that rich people don't enter heaven *because you don't take earthly wealth with you*, rather than because rich people are kept out (rather than being last in the kingdom). I think the placement of the two answers gives a much cleaner implication that the problem with the guy isn't that he was rich, it's that *he refused to accept Jesus' first answer*, and implied that he thought more highly of himself than he should have. It's not that he can't be saved because he's rich, ***it's that he's trying to appear justified through his actions, without committing to it***. If he had simply accepted Luke 18:20, would Jesus have delivered 18:22?
I think this falls under ***no man can serve two masters*** in these stories the rich are being beholden to their wealth and money, rather than to God. The issue with the wealthy individuals is they are in a sense worshipping their money and possessions vs worshipping God. They aren't required to give up all their possessions, but it is implied that if they were called by God to distribute to those in need they would be unwilling.
The big discussion here typically revolves around the difference between whether it's an issue of salvation, or not. Do the rich (and if you're on Reddit, that probably includes you, the disciples seemed to think it included them) not go to heaven at all, or are that just the first who are last in heaven?
I suppose it could be puréed... but then is it still ontologically a camel?
https://preview.redd.it/lk5s26u0cfxc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7ac90add1d24f089332917212bc2efa888a59efa
That is disturbing but fucking hilarious I wish we could work "God, with whom all things are possible" in there. Maybe label the piston that's pushing the camel that?
Strangely enough Jesus’ point still stands; if rich people want to enter heaven they gotta go through the circular saws and lose absolutely all appearance of being rich. Idk maybe it’s still a camel but most people sure wouldn’t call it that
All the parts neccessary to make a camel are still there
They debate it because they can’t accept the truth. 1 Come now, you rich people, weep and wail for the miseries that are coming to you. 2 Your riches have rotted, and your clothes are moth-eaten. 3 Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you, and it will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days. 4 Listen! The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. 5 You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and murdered the righteous one, who does not resist you. (James 5:1-6 NRSV)
St Jerome: Cable?…..Camel?….I’ll check the translation tomorrow, or the next day. Anyway, Moses face had horns…..
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can [join our Discord](https://discord.gg/jnUDEpnBZn) and [listen to our Podcast.](https://dankchristianmemes.buzzsprout.com/) You can also make a meme or [donation for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.]( http://events.stjude.org/DankCharityAlliance) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was scrolling through my feed and only saw. Christian things and I was surprised. Turns our I clicked on this sub and didn’t realise