>> Those who insist that this is not a parable, but a true, literal story Christ told to describe the condition of the lost in hell must overlook several facts to arrive at that conclusion. First, Yeshua the Messiah never accuses the rich man of any sin. He is simply portrayed as a wealthy man who lived the good life. Furthermore, Lazarus is never proclaimed to be a righteous man. He is just one who had the misfortune to be poor and unable to care for himself. If this story is literal, then the logical implication is that all the rich are destined to burn in hell, while all the homeless and destitute will be saved. <<
Wow. I’m simply amazed at the presumptiveness of this article. While it doesn’t detail the sins of the rich man, he is told that Moses and the prophets would prevent his brothers from his torments, if they would but listen to them. Daily the rich man probably had to step over the poor man, since the bible tells us he laid at his gate, full of sores. The rich man never once aided the poor man in the slightest way: he wasn’t just rich, he was greedy and selfish, with no human compassion.
Further, the passages from Matthew 13 are from an entirely different context, including parables which don’t relate to morality in any obvious way. Because the meaning isn’t plain, we look to less apparent meanings. But the meaning of Luke 16 is plain: “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (v.13) That’s not a parable. That’s a direct statement.
Christians must be charitable. Conservatives realize that government-controlled appropriations of other people’s money isn’t charity; it’s control, so we oppose government programs which forcibly remove money from people to give to those who may well be poor because of their own sinful behavior.
There certainly are some worthwhile points: those who have spiritual wealth must also share their spiritual wealth, using it to uplift rather than oppress others, to enable godliness in the less fortunate. I’ll even say this: precisely because we have the benefit of the Eucharist and the teachings of the magisterium, it is so much more dire when Catholics neglect spiritual charity. BUt this is consistent with the evident meaning of the passage.
It's entirely possible he was. But whatever it means it's not meant to teach what heaven and hell are like which is the whole point of the article.
Christians must be charitable. Conservatives realize that government-controlled appropriations of other people’s money isn’t charity; it’s control, so we oppose government programs which forcibly remove money from people to give to those who may well be poor because of their own sinful behavior.
Christians should certainly NOT be greedy or covetous and should be charitable and giving. But again the article is pointing out a deeper meaning. It's not meant to be taken as a literal view of heaven and hell but as a teaching tool or lesson for something else.