A rich man with an annual income over 100 million dollars who gives a million dollars to fund church missions each year
or a poor man with an annual income of 20,000 dollars a year who gives over 3,000 dollars of his income to help his parents and siblings each year yet none to his church
2007-01-28 11:42:06 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Neither; the first is misguided, the other is self interested.
2007-01-28 11:49:50 · answer #1 · answered by neil s 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I were a missionary or some missions executive headquartered in Colorado Springs I'd go for the first man. But since I happen to be the second, then I settle for him (or me). I'm always more righteous than the rest of the pack.
2007-01-28 19:48:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I disagree with those who say the first man is less righteous than the second. I think the first man well intentioned, but misguided.
2007-01-28 19:54:05 · answer #3 · answered by Ben 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The latter, because in order to make a 100 mill a year salary you have to have screwed someone over along the way.
2007-01-28 19:50:12 · answer #4 · answered by milkl_jaxon 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Family is a very important thing. You do what you can to help those you care about. The second is more righteous and noble.
2007-01-28 19:47:15 · answer #5 · answered by ninja freak 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both
2007-01-28 19:45:57 · answer #6 · answered by Stormilutionist Chasealogist 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are both righteous acts and unslefish acts
2007-01-28 19:47:40 · answer #7 · answered by revfergy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If more people would be that righteous, religion would have a better name.
2007-01-28 19:47:05 · answer #8 · answered by S K 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A man who does not pay his tithes will stay poor and is disobedient to God no matter how much or little he makes!
2007-01-28 19:47:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
They are both righteous.
2007-01-28 19:45:07 · answer #10 · answered by Cold Fart 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋