I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

Indeed, where the KJV has “unrighteous mammon,” the NIV has “worldly wealth.” Not all worldly wealth is ill-gotten. Wealth is, however, “unrighteous.” But not in the sense that it is evil, either. Paul wrote (1 Timothy 6:10): “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” He did not write that money is a root of evil, but the love of money.

And thus, in the Luke passage above, Jesus said, “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”

“…make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon, that when you fail, they may receive you into an everlasting home.”

I think the NIV makes it more clear, but even your interpretation is understandable enough.

9 “And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon, that when you fail, they may receive you into an everlasting home. 10 He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much. 11 Therefore if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? 12 And if you have not been faithful in what is another man’s, who will give you what is your own?

13 “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

Luke 16:9-13

What He says is “another man’s” is mammon in general. Our is the Kingdom of Heaven. Thus, He tells us to be “faithful in what is least” (mammon), particularly in verse 11: “Therefore if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?” (i.e., the Kingdom of Heaven).

Certainly, one cannot consider taking what is not yours either “faithful” or “just.”

That piece about the Shrewd Manager that you point to is a real piece of work. How do you explain it in light of ALL THE REST of Jesus’s preachings? Does it match the rest? Nope.

Jesus would have loved Social Security. Do I need to start quoting all of the rest of his preachings to prove my point? I can quote them in favor of Social Security almost without number. Now can you quote even one that says it is wrong? Even one?

Even so, Jesus, in accord with the rest of the Bible, speaks always of individual aid to the poor. The government is told only not to oppress the poor.

“Is it wrong for the American Public to seek the votes of the elderly?”

Ends do not justify means.

It is remarkable that your entire last example might be explained by Luke Chapter 16 beginning with the first verse. Here you will find the parable of the Shrewd Manager.

Is it wrong for the American Public to seek the votes of the elderly?

I really love the Social Secutiy system beyond the Bible. But it suits my purposes that the parable of the Shrewd Manager defends it.

I think Jesus would support Social Security.

Let us imagine a rather inventive thief who, to ingratiate himself with the people and keep himself out of jail, steals mostly from the rich (“That’s where the money is.”), gives away most of what he steals, but still keeps a good bit for himself and his cronies. (This is not a Robin Hood sort of thing. Robin Hood actually “recovered” ill-gotten tax collections, and returned the money to those who had paid it.) But now many of his former victims are poor. Is it right for him to repay those people with money stolen from still more people?

We must ask ourselves whether it is right for a thief to repay his first victims by stealing from yet more victims.

How “right” is Social Security? Perhaps our resident accountant could answer that. Vivian, what would happen to the executives of a company who set up a retirement system modeled on Social Security?

But what about those elderly that included income from the Social Security sytem in their retirement plans after having paid into the system for all these years?

The Social Security system is one of the things that I think our society got right. We take care of the elderly with at least a modest income after they retire.

A few points, though. First, the five virgins did not become fools when the fire went out; in their foolishness, they allowed their fires to go out. We, too, allow the fires of youth to die in the boredom of middle age. Second, the maidens were not going to see the wedding — they were to be his brides.

Finally, I love this part:

The lack of oil stands today as a monument of failure to those of us who have made up our minds that we are going to get through life on the minimum. Carrying a little extra oil was too bothersome for these foolish virgins. Putting forth a little extra effort to do something is too bothersome for many of us. We are rocking ourselves to sleep on the unfounded idea that someone else will give to us when we give out.

Wow. Is that not the whole point of the Social Security system, to take from others and give to those who did not plan and save for their own retirement?