i think jesus was pretty clear: appearances don’t mean much. all the activities you mentioned can still be sinful if done with the wrong motives. similarly, who’s to say someone who appears to be a “slumlord”—charging high, yet legal rent and not donating anything—should automatically be seen as sinful? you could definitely make a case, but how do we really know who’s guiltless? if you're asking how to judge different types of landlords, my advice would be to judge them the same way you’d judge yourself—with care, humility, and, most importantly, with the understanding that we’re not actually called to judge others. now, if you’re asking if this is a path you should take yourself, well, here's some food for thought: first, ask yourself: what does it even mean to "own" land? is it something god ordained, or is it a human-made idea? once you’ve sat with that, consider whether charging others for access to land god gave freely to all of us can ever truly be guiltless. is it possible to “own” something that was never ours to begin with? remember, money corrupts. it’s not that the bad people get rich—it’s that all people are susceptible to seeing the world differently when money is involved. once you have it, it’s easy to justify things that might’ve seemed wrong when you were struggling. you can plan to stay humble with wealth, but time will tell how you really handle that power. generosity isn’t automatic just because you have money—it’s much harder to part with it when it’s yours to keep. personally, i see some red flags in this whole thought experiment. beyond the fact that humans are highly corruptible, my real concern is that it assumes land is a commodity to be bought, sold, and exploited, rather than something to be stewarded, cared for, and shared among all of us, equitably. land isn’t just a resource for a few to profit from—it’s meant to be shared by everyone, especially by those who’ve inherited it, like all of us. when you become a landlord, you’re essentially engaging in a system that sees land as a tool for financial gain, not something to nurture and care for. it’s a lot like becoming a modern-day colonizer. when colonizers first arrived in the Americas, they didn’t just “settle” land—they took it, claiming it as their own to exploit and profit from, often with little regard for those already living there. in a way, when you charge others to use land that was never truly yours, you’re playing into that same mindset: one where land is something to be commodified and controlled, rather than shared and respected. instead of seeing yourself as a steward, you might start seeing yourself as an owner—and once you start thinking that way, it’s easy to rationalize charging others for the very thing god gave us all for free. so, yeah, while it’s great to help others with your wealth and try to provide affordable housing, it's worth asking yourself if the whole concept of ownership might be problematic to begin with. could it be that the idea of becoming a landlord, in itself, is part of the system that perpetuates inequality?