>>>>>>>>When reading a passage from the Bible, it helps to put it in context. What did it mean then, what does it mean now, and what was the situation at that time. The passage below dealt with a person who was worshiping his money. Jesus cut him to the core with his comments. You might also research the "needle's eye" to find it doesn't really mean a needle's eye.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And the passage you quoted - did it mean the same thing then as now? What was the situation then as opposed to now. With respect to the 'needle', if you're referring to the Jerusalem gate that you have to crawl through, there is no historical evidence that such a gate ever existed, so why would I assume Jesus was referring to it? If you're referring to something else, then I'm afraid I must plead ignorance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've read the chapters in all three books over and I can't find anywhere that it says he was worshipping his money. Can you point me to the passage that says that? What I glean from the result of Jesus telling him to give up his wealth to the poor is that he wanted his money more than he wanted the poor to have it. How is that different from what many people here are espousing? And before you get all pointy finger at me, yes, I want what I have more too. I figure I give enough of it away to charities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>What's the point to use religious arguments if, as I guess, you don't belong to the religion? Please, note also that Christianity or any other religion speaks about voluntary giveaways. It does not consider government to help in this process.
>>>>>
>>>>>I take it then that you are unfamiliar with the concept of attempting to use the other persons arguments to make your own point. If you feel my discussions with John are pointless, then perhaps you shouldn't bother reading them. John made his point based on a passage from the bible, so I responded with a different passage. Simple as that.
>>>>>
>>>>>If a person is truly religious and wants to go to heaven, then the giveaway is not voluntary - it's mandatory. I don't have a problem with the government helping out as long as they don't get too far outside reality.
>>>>
>>>>You ignore my major point. If you use religious argument then, for consistency sake, you should not bring government in. Either this, or that. It is impossible to sit on two chairs.
>>>
>>>That only applies if your government is really secular
>>
>>Actually, I meant your government, Walter.
>
>What makes you think the dutch government is purely secular ?

You. You always inform this board about your government.