Timothy says “the love of money is the root of all evil.” Tobit is not considered apocryphal to Catholics and Orthodox. Jesus’ reference to hating one’s family is probably just a Semitic exaggeration for meaning love less.
Thanks, MarcoAntonio. How the Timothy quotation got messed up, I don't know. I meant for the full quotation to be included and I'm sure when I first wrote it, it was included, so how it got dropped I will attribute to carelessness. At the very least, I'm moving too fast and not editing with sufficient care.
Another thing is that Jesus and the early Christians probably thought the world was going to end soon. I wonder what fhey would have thought if they knew that the world would last 200 or much less 2000 years. I doubt Paul would have written in Romans 13 if he knew Nero was going to use Christians to light his garden parties
Since the root of all Christianity, not just the Catholics and the Seven Sisters, is the Bible would not Kausky's analysis apply to all. I found myself wondering whether it is possible to short Pasqual's wager.
I'm dodging your question by quoting from one of my favorite British TV shows from a few decades ago, "You might think that; I couldn't possibly comment."
There is so much to respond to here, I could not possibly do it without spending days on my own rebuttal. I have not the time for that, so briefly:
My guiding star for biblical interpretation is Psalm 119:160, “The sum of your word is truth.” It is impossible to know the full truth of a matter without considering the entirety of scripture. While the collection of scriptures that you included in your article appear compelling, your thesis does not hold up if you look at the entirety of scripture.
Those who are exemplified as heroes of the faith—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, King David, Solomon—were fabulously wealthy and yet were never condemned per se for their wealth. Nor were the wealthy women who supported Jesus out of their own means (Luke 8:1-3), the centurion Cornelius (Acts 10–he was clearly wealthy and is explicitly described as “devout” and who “feared God”), the devout woman of Proverbs 30, or the city treasurer of Rome (Rom 16:23). The kings of the east gave to the newborn Christ gifts of wealth and honor suitable for a king (Matt 2:11)—was this not seen to be appropriate?
There are plenty of references in the New Testament to people with trades who earned their own money and those who owned property, and never was this referred to as evil (Acts 10:6, Acts 12:12, Acts 16:14, Acts 18:7, Acts 21:8, Rom 16:3-5, 1 Cor 16:19, Col 4:14-15, the entire book of Philemon). Again and again and again in the New Testament, Christians are exhorted to give of their own means, even sacrificially (Gal 6:5-10, 2 Cor 8:7-15, Rom 16:2, 1 Tim 6:18-19). How can they possibly give of their own means if they are not sanctioned to have their own means? Paul certainly did not condemn possession of wealth (Phil 4:12-13). Not only this, but the Old Testament also refers to possession of wealth as a gift (Prov 10:22, Prov 13:22, Prov 15:6).
I am puzzled by your use of James to condemn the wealthy simply for being wealthy: “And in the New Testament (James 5:1-6), wealth qua wealth is cursed for its own sake and condemned with no reason or evidence given to justify the judgment.” The evidence is right there in the verse! The person was withholding rightfully earned wages through fraud. It is this kind of abuse of the poor and less wealthy that I believe is at the heart of most condemnations of wealthy people in scripture.
Absolutely I believe people use scripture to justify communism, and it is not a surprise to me that the early communists did so. But you can pick and choose any verses of scripture to justify anything you want to say. That is why Psalm 119:160 is so critical.
There is so much more…but I’ll conclude with 2 Cor 9, which cannot be fairly used to justify communism; on the contrary it would suggest the opposite: those who give willingly, not under compulsion, receive “an abundance for every good work” (vs. 6-8). He who sows bountifully will reap bountifully. Throughout scripture, it is God who supplies wealth, not the state, and as a matter of faith. And therein lies the massive conflict between Christianity and communism.
When one studies the attributes of God - and they come to light by studying ALL of scripture, and chooses to obey and love God because of those attributes, one begins to understand that God is at once just but filled with grace and compassion. Condemning or redeeming just “because” is simply not in His nature. Don’t regale me with passages about His wrath and His recorded condemnations. In my years of reading His Word, I have come to BEGIN with God is good and is filled with mercy for those separated from His Holiness. I will never be convinced by comparing His words or actions to the paradigm created by man in which I live. I just trust Him. And He would not condemn a man based on earthly possessions. Nor would He sanctify a man based on the lack of possessions. That is why the doctrine of grace is so beautiful. It brings the most lofty down to a proper station, and it lifts the most lowly to their proper station - equal in the eyes of God.
The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus depicts a drastic reversal of fortunes between two men in life and the afterlife but it does not explain how each man achieved his relative condition during life.
It brings to mind for me Aesop’s Fable about the Ant and the Grasshopper. In this story the conflict is between industry and idleness. The Ant succeeds through personal discipline, and the Grasshopper fails through personal neglect.
The Lazarus Parable tells us nothing about the lives of the rich man or Lazarus except for their status. The conflict is between “privilege and suffering”, and the sin of indifference. But it fails to explain how either man found himself in those circumstances.
Instead, it implies that wealth must be evil (and perhaps it was in many cases before capitalism).
This story begs the most important question: What is a good life or how is man supposed to live a moral life.
Unlike the Ant, who is portrayed as wise for withholding food, the rich man is condemned for his failure to share his "crumbs" with the suffering Lazarus. But why must he share? Is Lazarus a man who is deserving of charity? Is he a moral man?
None of these questions are answered. The only lesson we learn from this parable is that the meek will inherit the earth.
Another timely, thought-provoking, and inescapably necessary article!
Reason and its remorseless logic dictate that politics will invariably follow on the heels of morality. What one discovers or comes to believe represents justice or is "good," one will seek to merge into groups that mirror such values, while rejecting opposing or alternative values merely lacking in them.
The key to properly putting such facts into perspective is understanding each - i.e., understanding morality versus politics.
Morality arises because of Man’s capacity to choose. His free will enables him to choose between both profound and nuances of good and evil. The important concept being “choose.” If he has no choice, or if his choice is being compelled under force or threat, whatever he then chooses in response can no longer said to be a moral choice The compulsion or external duress, destroys the very concept of morality and it becomes seriously silly (illogical and contradictory)!
One’s free will enables them to choose any value for any reason for whatever purpose. It also logically makes them responsible for the consequences of their choices. One may NOT so choose for another human being who has the same moral responsibility/right of exercise of their free will, and then claim to be doing so in the name of morality!”. What then does this and preceding paragraphs logically demand?
When it comes to politics, one may exercise one’s free will and choose whatever values one finds worthwhile – with but one proviso. One may not make a choice that violates the right of someone else to do the same. One must always do so, however, in the context of Reason. (Hint: Conflicts do not arise among rational men. Yes, they will invariably arise among competing men, but rules, laws, and principles can and will be rationally defined among men to eliminate or adjudicate such conflicts
In summary, I must always remain politically free to exercise what I determine to be - not just in my individual “material” interest, but in my individual “spiritual” interest as well – with what is MINE to utilize. This leads to the following moral-political consequences.
We each maintain moral responsibility for our choices. None among us are responsible for the choices of another. With relevance to CBT’s article and Christian morality, as a Christian you may choose whatever moral values you wish in living your life. You may even believe that variations of Christian morality represent a (the!) moral ideal. You may be correct? Others must remain politically free to reject such an ideal(s). For example: I may choose to believe that Rand’s “rational self-interest” is my moral ideal, and I accept both the moral and political consequences that arise therefrom. Each one of us must retain the political right/responsibility to make such choices.
In my opinion, compulsory political prescriptions that act to force others to live as Jesus urged are responsible for much of humanity’s ills, while also fostering “good” as well. The compulsory former one screams the results for itself! The latter, often performed voluntarily. quietly so.
Is it not ironic that the Bible’s “golden rule” remains part of both? Alas, the former, follow it or else!
Timothy says “the love of money is the root of all evil.” Tobit is not considered apocryphal to Catholics and Orthodox. Jesus’ reference to hating one’s family is probably just a Semitic exaggeration for meaning love less.
Thanks, MarcoAntonio. How the Timothy quotation got messed up, I don't know. I meant for the full quotation to be included and I'm sure when I first wrote it, it was included, so how it got dropped I will attribute to carelessness. At the very least, I'm moving too fast and not editing with sufficient care.
Another thing is that Jesus and the early Christians probably thought the world was going to end soon. I wonder what fhey would have thought if they knew that the world would last 200 or much less 2000 years. I doubt Paul would have written in Romans 13 if he knew Nero was going to use Christians to light his garden parties
Paul would have written it anyway, because it was not really him writing it, but was inspired
by God?. It came to pass because it had to.
Since the root of all Christianity, not just the Catholics and the Seven Sisters, is the Bible would not Kausky's analysis apply to all. I found myself wondering whether it is possible to short Pasqual's wager.
I'm dodging your question by quoting from one of my favorite British TV shows from a few decades ago, "You might think that; I couldn't possibly comment."
There is so much to respond to here, I could not possibly do it without spending days on my own rebuttal. I have not the time for that, so briefly:
My guiding star for biblical interpretation is Psalm 119:160, “The sum of your word is truth.” It is impossible to know the full truth of a matter without considering the entirety of scripture. While the collection of scriptures that you included in your article appear compelling, your thesis does not hold up if you look at the entirety of scripture.
Those who are exemplified as heroes of the faith—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, King David, Solomon—were fabulously wealthy and yet were never condemned per se for their wealth. Nor were the wealthy women who supported Jesus out of their own means (Luke 8:1-3), the centurion Cornelius (Acts 10–he was clearly wealthy and is explicitly described as “devout” and who “feared God”), the devout woman of Proverbs 30, or the city treasurer of Rome (Rom 16:23). The kings of the east gave to the newborn Christ gifts of wealth and honor suitable for a king (Matt 2:11)—was this not seen to be appropriate?
There are plenty of references in the New Testament to people with trades who earned their own money and those who owned property, and never was this referred to as evil (Acts 10:6, Acts 12:12, Acts 16:14, Acts 18:7, Acts 21:8, Rom 16:3-5, 1 Cor 16:19, Col 4:14-15, the entire book of Philemon). Again and again and again in the New Testament, Christians are exhorted to give of their own means, even sacrificially (Gal 6:5-10, 2 Cor 8:7-15, Rom 16:2, 1 Tim 6:18-19). How can they possibly give of their own means if they are not sanctioned to have their own means? Paul certainly did not condemn possession of wealth (Phil 4:12-13). Not only this, but the Old Testament also refers to possession of wealth as a gift (Prov 10:22, Prov 13:22, Prov 15:6).
I am puzzled by your use of James to condemn the wealthy simply for being wealthy: “And in the New Testament (James 5:1-6), wealth qua wealth is cursed for its own sake and condemned with no reason or evidence given to justify the judgment.” The evidence is right there in the verse! The person was withholding rightfully earned wages through fraud. It is this kind of abuse of the poor and less wealthy that I believe is at the heart of most condemnations of wealthy people in scripture.
Absolutely I believe people use scripture to justify communism, and it is not a surprise to me that the early communists did so. But you can pick and choose any verses of scripture to justify anything you want to say. That is why Psalm 119:160 is so critical.
There is so much more…but I’ll conclude with 2 Cor 9, which cannot be fairly used to justify communism; on the contrary it would suggest the opposite: those who give willingly, not under compulsion, receive “an abundance for every good work” (vs. 6-8). He who sows bountifully will reap bountifully. Throughout scripture, it is God who supplies wealth, not the state, and as a matter of faith. And therein lies the massive conflict between Christianity and communism.
Would love to hear your thoughts on these.
Very well said.
All I can say after reading this is Marxists are far better Christians than I will ever be.
When one studies the attributes of God - and they come to light by studying ALL of scripture, and chooses to obey and love God because of those attributes, one begins to understand that God is at once just but filled with grace and compassion. Condemning or redeeming just “because” is simply not in His nature. Don’t regale me with passages about His wrath and His recorded condemnations. In my years of reading His Word, I have come to BEGIN with God is good and is filled with mercy for those separated from His Holiness. I will never be convinced by comparing His words or actions to the paradigm created by man in which I live. I just trust Him. And He would not condemn a man based on earthly possessions. Nor would He sanctify a man based on the lack of possessions. That is why the doctrine of grace is so beautiful. It brings the most lofty down to a proper station, and it lifts the most lowly to their proper station - equal in the eyes of God.
The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus depicts a drastic reversal of fortunes between two men in life and the afterlife but it does not explain how each man achieved his relative condition during life.
It brings to mind for me Aesop’s Fable about the Ant and the Grasshopper. In this story the conflict is between industry and idleness. The Ant succeeds through personal discipline, and the Grasshopper fails through personal neglect.
The Lazarus Parable tells us nothing about the lives of the rich man or Lazarus except for their status. The conflict is between “privilege and suffering”, and the sin of indifference. But it fails to explain how either man found himself in those circumstances.
Instead, it implies that wealth must be evil (and perhaps it was in many cases before capitalism).
This story begs the most important question: What is a good life or how is man supposed to live a moral life.
Unlike the Ant, who is portrayed as wise for withholding food, the rich man is condemned for his failure to share his "crumbs" with the suffering Lazarus. But why must he share? Is Lazarus a man who is deserving of charity? Is he a moral man?
None of these questions are answered. The only lesson we learn from this parable is that the meek will inherit the earth.
"Both Christian and communist believe that the poor man is good because he is poor, and they believe the rich man is bad because he is rich."
Simplistic.
Marx: the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Jesus: free will.
What an important gauntlet you have thrown down!
Is it possible that it was biggest psychological operation to teach the rule “it is impolite to discuss religion, politics or money! “
We should have been discussing them rigorously… and unceasingly! Now is the time!
Another timely, thought-provoking, and inescapably necessary article!
Reason and its remorseless logic dictate that politics will invariably follow on the heels of morality. What one discovers or comes to believe represents justice or is "good," one will seek to merge into groups that mirror such values, while rejecting opposing or alternative values merely lacking in them.
The key to properly putting such facts into perspective is understanding each - i.e., understanding morality versus politics.
Morality arises because of Man’s capacity to choose. His free will enables him to choose between both profound and nuances of good and evil. The important concept being “choose.” If he has no choice, or if his choice is being compelled under force or threat, whatever he then chooses in response can no longer said to be a moral choice The compulsion or external duress, destroys the very concept of morality and it becomes seriously silly (illogical and contradictory)!
One’s free will enables them to choose any value for any reason for whatever purpose. It also logically makes them responsible for the consequences of their choices. One may NOT so choose for another human being who has the same moral responsibility/right of exercise of their free will, and then claim to be doing so in the name of morality!”. What then does this and preceding paragraphs logically demand?
When it comes to politics, one may exercise one’s free will and choose whatever values one finds worthwhile – with but one proviso. One may not make a choice that violates the right of someone else to do the same. One must always do so, however, in the context of Reason. (Hint: Conflicts do not arise among rational men. Yes, they will invariably arise among competing men, but rules, laws, and principles can and will be rationally defined among men to eliminate or adjudicate such conflicts
In summary, I must always remain politically free to exercise what I determine to be - not just in my individual “material” interest, but in my individual “spiritual” interest as well – with what is MINE to utilize. This leads to the following moral-political consequences.
We each maintain moral responsibility for our choices. None among us are responsible for the choices of another. With relevance to CBT’s article and Christian morality, as a Christian you may choose whatever moral values you wish in living your life. You may even believe that variations of Christian morality represent a (the!) moral ideal. You may be correct? Others must remain politically free to reject such an ideal(s). For example: I may choose to believe that Rand’s “rational self-interest” is my moral ideal, and I accept both the moral and political consequences that arise therefrom. Each one of us must retain the political right/responsibility to make such choices.
In my opinion, compulsory political prescriptions that act to force others to live as Jesus urged are responsible for much of humanity’s ills, while also fostering “good” as well. The compulsory former one screams the results for itself! The latter, often performed voluntarily. quietly so.
Is it not ironic that the Bible’s “golden rule” remains part of both? Alas, the former, follow it or else!
Dave