Your argument is asymmetrical with regards to the other teachings of the Christ: that is to be saved, one must become "poor," both in spirit and in wealth. His message was thus not based on charitable acts, of which he found much hypocrisy (the parable about the poor woman giving a penny being much more than the wealthy doners' offerings, because it was all she had is exemplary), but symbiosis. He didn't really teach, therefore, that helping the poor was the way to God, but becoming poor.DL9999 said:That is not really true though, is it? As far as I recall, Christ repeatedly stressed the importance of helping the poor and downtrodden. Following his teaching can thus not be equated with reinforcing the existing order. And to state that the oppressed are close to heaven is not to declare that they should simply accept their lot.
"What must I do to be saved, teacher?"
"Give everything you have to the poor and come follow me."
And..."I say verily to you that it is harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God, than for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle (an impossibility, in other words)."
I don't know how much Christ "repeatedly stressed helping the poor," therefore, but it appears much more accurate to say that his message emphasized how incompatible worldly riches and ambition, hubris and power over others were to receiving divine grace and salvation. Your thesis, to the contrary, does not correspond to the message of the Christ, who, both by example and word, established a value system whereby poverty was diametrically set against wealth. He also stated in no uncertain terms that only the poor can be saved.
Christianity, in the real world (with the rare exceptions of a Francis of Assisi), has always had the greatest difficulty in coming to terms with the radical nature of this message. Hence why I said Christians in fact live according to forms of life, which in fact are not their own. And much more today than in the past, because the consumptive, profit driven and hedonistic social model driving today's society has nothing to do with the ministry of the man from Galilee two thousand years ago.
Unless you can demonstrate to the contrary and without apology, I really don't see any validity in what you say.