So if you live like that how are you going to be able to give? How are you going to have the time to fulfill the great commission?
In the context of what I wrote, I was describing that we only should do as God would have us do in giving to those in need. It is not about worthiness or merit, it is about listening to God. What I see with my eyes and how it affects my heart, of course, would cause me to want to give, or not to give, in any situation, but I believe firmly that I should not act on my feelings or my knowledge; instead I should seek God's will on when, who, and how much I should give.
Because you are spending all your time building and upkeeping your house, growing your own food, bartering for what you can't make yourself, crafting your own tools, etc. You won't have time for a job.
Again, Seeking, I agree. I mean, primative people who have time to feast, dance, socialize, etc, have MORE opportunities to fulfill the great commission than those who are so consumed with modern life that they don't know their neighbor's name. And giving could still be done (and was/is) in this situation. I could give my time to my sick neighbor, helping him/her tend crops, sew clothing, or care for children. The only real change would be that giving would become much more personal on the whole. Instead of donating money to help a needy family via food bank, you'd be making them a meal.
I didn't think the great commission is having a job. I don't think it is necessary to have a job to fulfill the great commission. That command is to spread the Gospel, all it takes is speaking to others. I don't think we are understanding Actressdancers main point. She is merely pointing out how we could live if we had to and how most of the things we enjoy are extras (at least that is what I see in her post). I don't think she is saying we cut off our electricity and start living on only what we can grow.
No, of course it isn't about having a job. But the point of simplification was to give, right? If you simplify that much you won't have time to have the job that would give you the excess to give.
It is kind of sad really that we have come so far to be enslaved by our own ideas and lifestyles! It always come down to this question for me, who is my Master? (And as I said before, I am a hypocrite, so I am as "enslaved" to things I should not be as anyone else.)
Right. I even said that I'm not advocating a total lifestyle change, here. I'm just trying to emphasize that we ALL have more than we NEED! So at what point is it ok to have more than we need, but at another point it's just "too much more?" Like I keep saying, what gives us to draw an arbitrary line anywhere? Of course the Lord convicts each of us to draw the line in our own lives, but how can we even begin to be so brazen as to draw the line in the lives of others? I think we have every right to question organizations like the church. There should be clear priorities, and gold toilets are not among them. But when we look at wealthy individuals and say, "how dare they spend $300,000 on a car when there are starving chidren in Africa" well, to be honest, that's not our place. ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that each and every one of us lives in luxury far beyond need. Just the fact that we are in this discussion, by way of internet connection, means that everyone participating in this conversation has moved far, far, far beyond simply living within the bounds of necessity.
Nice! I still cannot see how spreading the Gospel or helping those in need is tied to our current way of life. If anything, it's hindered.
No, I didn't say anything about simplifying as a means to give. Not even remotely my point. Though, as I said, simplifying does not mean one can not give, so your argument is flawed, regardless. One does not need money to give. Therefore one does not need a job to give.
I would like to bring up another point about the prosperity we already have here in the U.S. Someone brought up the fact that ordinary Americans gave even while they were struggling to pay bills. I think there are two types of strugglers in the U.S. One: There are the people who through no fault of there own struggle financially. Their husband/wife has died, they are disabled, they are single parents without support from the parent who left or not enough. The list could go on and on. There are probably millions in the U.S. that fall into this category. Two: There are people who never seem to catch up, BECAUSE they always want more or they just don't manage their money well (I was guilty of that). In my case, I used credit cards and didn't think too much about how long it would take to pay them off. NOW, I am finally using wisdom to pay off extra and NOT use them to get out of debt. I was able to pay the minimum, so that added to the laziness in paying them off. I also have a good friend who says often that they struggle, but they bought a new home and put in a pool. Then they added a long cement sidewalk. Then they bought a new car, when the one they replaced was only 4 or 5 years old. The thing is they do have plenty of money coming in, they choose to use some of it for things they don't need. I wouldn't think anything of it, if I didn't hear how it is difficult to stay on top of things. So, I am guilty. In fact, it is sad that I put myself in this bind only to not be able to help out as many people as I could if I didn't have this debt.
No, you don't. But you can't be far reaching in your efforts if you can only walk. You can't be far reaching in your efforts if you have no money to give. Going into all the world takes money.
Reminds me of my BIL, who recently forced his wife to go to work. MIL is now watching their baby and not getting paid (they can leverage this since MIL/FIL live in cheap rent in their basement apartment). He makes $1200 A WEEK!!!! But he is constantly playing "keep up with the Jonses" and spends every penny he makes on the newest/greatest toys. He is always complaining that they don't make enough. Meanwhile, we live on a monthly income relatively close to what they make a week. And we have twice as many children. He won't even let his daughter take any music/dance/gymnastics/etc. lessons because it's too expensive. Yet our boys take instrument lessons. It's a matter of priorities: technology and new cars are his, family and education are ours. (totally off point, since he's not a Christian, so what he does with his money is not relevent to the conversation, but your comment made me think of it.)
