Not to Be Served , but to Serve.

But this is my view...if you accumulate wealth that was gained immorally or hoard vast amounts which you will never use while others are in need, I'm pretty sure God would not approve. If you hoard vast amounts surely you are worshipping money.
We don't have to be poor to be Christians but there are limits to what we should accumulate. Also, someone having special tax arrangements is considering himself better than others and deserving of special treatment.

I’m damned then. I don’t expect to spend everything before I pop my clogs.

Well I've been a Christian ever since I can remember nadeteturbe and have absolutely no idea whether God would approve or not.

It's what we have in our hearts that matters to God, not how much we have in the bank.

When people were asking Jesus if they should pay their taxes he told them to give to Ceasar that which was Ceasar's and give to God that which is God's.

Leviticus 19 v 15 "........ you must not show partiality to the poor or favouritism to the rich, you are to judge your neighbour fairly".

Isn't the point of being atheist or agnostic that you have studied and questioned the possibility and nature of God? And then decided he doesn't exist. Is it then compulsory to give up discussing the matter further?

Not compulsory but pointless

Anniebach

Again, why be concerned with a God one does not believe in.

I'd ask the same question, but to Jesus- who probably did live. I think hs views on wealth and power, poverty and injustice, were quite clear.

Leveticus certainly contains a lot of extremely weird stuff- so not quite a good reference.

I think it is fine for Glorianny to ask questions and discuss. I might do the same about say Greek Mythology. No one is trying to convince anyone here that they alone are right, and likewise Glorianny has not implied that others are in crackpot territory for believing.

Jesus allowed expensive perfume to be poured over his feet. He said not to rebuke the person, when it was suggested the money would be better spent helping the poor. Perhaps he would view the coronation in the same way?

Glorianny

Isn't the point of being atheist or agnostic that you have studied and questioned the possibility and nature of God? And then decided he doesn't exist. Is it then compulsory to give up discussing the matter further?

Absolutely, but mostly people decide that there is no such thing as God, or that they don’t believe in God, or that there is a God without having studied and questioned anything except their own beliefs.

Sorry, pressed post too quickly. No problem with discussing it if there’s respect on all sides and not ridicule, which often happens.

Agree Mollygo how often has.Christians,on this forum been mocked , many,many,many times.

Germanshepherdsmum

I’m damned then. I don’t expect to spend everything before I pop my clogs.

I hope not to either. I have a small amount of savings which I hope will cover any private treatment needed. That's different to someone hoarding a vast amount which will never need to be spent. And seeking to add to it.

Anniebach

Agree Mollygo how often has.Christians,on this forum been mocked , many,many,many times.

But not by atheists on this thread to my knowledge.

I think sometimes we try to justify things to ourselves that are wrong. Because we don't want to have to change.
Quotes from the Bible have to be taken in context.

Bizziebe

Anniebach

Agree Mollygo how often has.Christians,on this forum been mocked , many,many,many times.

But not by atheists on this thread to my knowledge.

Yes, sad to say but Christians have most definitely been mocked on this forum, but only by a minority of posters, some of who were notorious for being able to start a fight in an empty room. I'm pleased to report that one or two of those who specialised in personal attacks, denigration, and the occasional outright insult haven't posted recently, so I'm assuming that they've either retired hurt when they were found out, or perhaps were even red-carded by G.N., after a number of their posts were rightly deleted. If the latter, thank you G.N. I'm enjoying the fresh air.

Germanshepherdsmum

I’m damned then. I don’t expect to spend everything before I pop my clogs.

I'm trying 😁
May have to buy new knees, they'll be left behind when I go to Heaven anyway.

Arguably the acquisition of wealth being a sin, and the necessity to use money to do good works led to the creation in Victorian times of many charitable organisations and the establishment of libraries, galleries, schools and other buildings.
Nothing like that happens today and there is no obligation on the rich, even the religious rich, to make any such donations. It now seems to be OK just to horde cash. The most extreme example being Charles 111 who seems to be happy to make vows which create a special relationship between himself and God, but who doesn't pay even ordinary taxes. on his vast wealth, only voluntary ones in the UK, and nothing on the money stashed away in tax havens.
It's completely hypocritical.

NanaDana

Bizziebe

Anniebach

Agree Mollygo how often has.Christians,on this forum been mocked , many,many,many times.

But not by atheists on this thread to my knowledge.

Yes, sad to say but Christians have most definitely been mocked on this forum, but only by a minority of posters, some of who were notorious for being able to start a fight in an empty room. I'm pleased to report that one or two of those who specialised in personal attacks, denigration, and the occasional outright insult haven't posted recently, so I'm assuming that they've either retired hurt when they were found out, or perhaps were even red-carded by G.N., after a number of their posts were rightly deleted. If the latter, thank you G.N. I'm enjoying the fresh air.

Couldn't agree more.

You have absolutely no idea which charities and organisations benefit from donations from Charles or his family.

Glorianny

Arguably the acquisition of wealth being a sin, and the necessity to use money to do good works led to the creation in Victorian times of many charitable organisations and the establishment of libraries, galleries, schools and other buildings.
Nothing like that happens today and there is no obligation on the rich, even the religious rich, to make any such donations. It now seems to be OK just to horde cash. The most extreme example being Charles 111 who seems to be happy to make vows which create a special relationship between himself and God, but who doesn't pay even ordinary taxes. on his vast wealth, only voluntary ones in the UK, and nothing on the money stashed away in tax havens.
It's completely hypocritical.

Your first paragraph is true.
But Christ' Hospital dates back even further.
In 1552, the young King Edward VI responded to an impassioned sermon on the needs of London’s poor, and summoned the preacher, the Bishop of London, to talk more about this pressing situation. It was suggested that Edward should write to the Lord Mayor of London, to set in motion charitable measures to help the poor. And so the school was founded.

Quote from Guardian.

King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother's lead in paying income tax.13 Sept 2022

We are all equal.

Bizziebe

Glorianny

Arguably the acquisition of wealth being a sin, and the necessity to use money to do good works led to the creation in Victorian times of many charitable organisations and the establishment of libraries, galleries, schools and other buildings.
Nothing like that happens today and there is no obligation on the rich, even the religious rich, to make any such donations. It now seems to be OK just to horde cash. The most extreme example being Charles 111 who seems to be happy to make vows which create a special relationship between himself and God, but who doesn't pay even ordinary taxes. on his vast wealth, only voluntary ones in the UK, and nothing on the money stashed away in tax havens.
It's completely hypocritical.

Your first paragraph is true.
But Christ' Hospital dates back even further.
In 1552, the young King Edward VI responded to an impassioned sermon on the needs of London’s poor, and summoned the preacher, the Bishop of London, to talk more about this pressing situation. It was suggested that Edward should write to the Lord Mayor of London, to set in motion charitable measures to help the poor. And so the school was founded.

King Edward VI founded many grammar schools around the country, using the money his father had gained from the monasteries.

It strikes me as well that failing to pay tax is a direct violation of the instruction ^render unto the Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s,” Because taxes are the requirement of the state.

I believe that it is unfair and unwarranted to grant any monies passed from one monarch to the next monarch to be untaxable. Given the huge amount of wealth owned by the monarch it would not be unreasonable for the monarch to pay death duties like everyone else who has sufficient means, especially given that a person in London or the south east for example, does not need to be rich in order to incur inheritance tax. This rule only applies to wealth passing from monarch to monarch which is said to be the reason that Elizabeth 11 made her entire estate to be inherited by her son. Therefore she has shown us clearly that she believed that she alone in the country, should not have to pay inheritance tax. I ask, why should she not pay inheritance tax equally with her citizens/subjects?

I didn't know that Maddyone - about exemption from monarch to monarch. Deliberate avoidance of tax.

And I didn't know that about Edward VI *Callistemon. I must have a look at that, interesting.