To be sure, Jesus’ literal words suggest that he could condemn someone to hell simply because she had acheived wealth after she had entered a coma. But I find this view difficult to reconcile with his occasional digression onto other topics, such as love and compassion.

But hey - as I say, it’s just one man’s theology.

You know, I’m not quite sure how Jesus could possibly have been clearer about his views on wealth.

Yes I would care, if being wealthy automatically excluded me from heaven.

But my thesis is that Jesus didn’t really care about wealth; he cared about foregone opportunities to help your neighbor. Because people in comas do not have the opportunity to help anybody, they can’t forego the opportunity to help anybody, either. Ergo, a person who achieves wealth after he loses the opportunity to help his neighbor would not necessarily be excluded from heaven simply as a result of his wealth. THAT was my (inartfully articulated) point in raising the coma hypothetical.

You would not “die a wealthy man” because, even if your family won the lawsuit, they’d be winning the costs of your medical care and of their financial loss as a result of your being in a coma. They might get additional non-economic damages for the fact that they have lost you, but hardly enough to make them rich–and none of it would go to you. As if you would care, being in a coma.

Jesus condemned wealth. But he also praised it’s proper use

You should read Matthew. Jesus was pretty clear that the best use of wealth is to give it away and follow God.

Actually, I found it here, where it’s called “The Parable of the Ten Minas”. If you look here it’s called “The Parable of the Talents”, but then in that passage the unit of money is called “talents”. I do think that the idea is that you should use your God-given talents/abilities instead of sitting on them, but I doubt that Jesus intended an English pun here.

I find it interesting that most people who call themselves biblical literalists believe in interpreting stated parables literally but interprete actuall events ans having an alagorical meaning.

Well, I’ve never called myself a Biblical literalist, so no worries for me there.

… and where does Smith say greed is a virtue?

Rather, Smith acknowledged that people are motivated by self-interest, and by understanding this dynamic, we can better design our worlds. Similarly, Newton acknowledged that objects are motivated by gravity, and by understanding this dynamic, we can better design our worlds. In this sense, I don’t understand gravity or greed as virtues; rather, I observe them as facts.

But here’s the larger point: Whether you seek to raise money for your own benefit or to benefit others, you can go about it in a similar manner. Thus, while we commonly observe people working to amass wealth out of self-interest, the act of amassing wealth is not exclusively a self-interested pursuit. LifeTime Fitness is a for-profit corporation. The YMCA is a not-for-profit organization with a charitable mission. Both organizations sell gym memberships with comparable services at comparable prices. Self-interest or charitable interest, they operate with remarkable similarity in a capitalist market.

Without such a respect for the rights of others, well, then greed is as destructive as any other emotion or motivation without a proper respect for the rights of others.

But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their self-love…

The condemnation of the rich is very general, and what is being condemned is not obsession with wealth, or attitudes about wealth. It is wealth.

One man’s theology: If a car cash puts me into a coma for the rest of my life, I might eventually die a wealthy man because my family would sue, in my name, the people who drove the car that hit me. I kinda don’t think Jesus was talking about people in that situation. I understand Jesus to have expressed concerns about wealth because wealth implies that the wealthy person forsook the opportunity to help less wealthy people. It is the foregone opportunity to help my neighbor that concerned Jesus, not the wealth in itself.

According to capitalism, greed is a virtue. It’s positive, because the system doesn’t really work unless everyone acts in their own self-interest.

I humbly suggest this is a caricature of capitalism. I understand capitalism to involve little more than private parties exercising control over their own property. Yes, people motivated by greed may exercise their ingenuity to enhance their own wealth, but people motivated by selflessness may do so as well. But no one is compelled to greed; nor does capitalism fail if anyone, or everyone, acts selflessly.

Yes, some/many/most people are motivated by greed. This is not a reflection on capitalism; greed motivates plenty of corruption in non-capitalist institutions, too. Capitalism’s insight is not that greed is good, but that greed can in many respects be reconciled with the public good. Capitalism’s sin is not greed, but candor: rather than condemning and concealing greed (or ambition of any other variety), it acknowledges and harnesses it.

Industry does not equal greed; industry is a necessary step on the road to loving your neighbor. The “Parable of the Talents” simply exhorts us to use our resources of whatever nature industriously because from those to whom much is given, much is expected. The demand for both talent and money exceed the supply, and squandering either represents a theft from society. If you could grow 100 bushels of wheat, or if you have an insight that could help your society increase wheat harvest by 100 bushels, but instead you sit on your ass, your society is 100 bushels poorer either way. The sin of wealth - hoarding an extra 100 bushels of wheat - is certainly no worse than the sin of sloth.

Imagine you are starving. A farmer may have raised some food, but may have no compassion for you. I, on the other hand, am filled with compassion, but I never bothered to raise any food. The Parable of the Talents says that the farmer and I are equally guilty of failing to love our neighbor. My current poverty does not excuse me from the condemnation leveled against the wealthy. For I was wealthy in opportunity, and if I had truly set my mind upon doing what was best for you I would have worked industriously toward that end. Forsaken wealth may be less conspicuous than hoarded wealth, but it’s certainly no less pernicious from societies’ (or god’s) - or your - perspective.

Love your neighbor. Pray for heaven. Work like hell.

The Bible says not to wear your piety in public and make a big deal out of how pious you are, but rather to make it a private deal. The Bible also says that rich people will really only go to heaven if they give all of their money and possessions to the poor. The Bible says to show mercy and forgiveness to those who seek to do you harm, and if someone strikes one of your cheeks, to offer him the other one.

And yet George Bush took the Christian vote?

Ah right. He hates the gays, so that explains it.

—Myca

Perhaps that’s because Jesus never condemmed capitalism and never said anything about striving for economic equality among people.

This is true, absolutely, but my point is that capitalism does precisely the same thing for the sin of greed that you claim the pro-homosexual lobby does for (what you consider) the sin of homosexuality. According to capitalism, greed is a virtue. It’s positive, because the system doesn’t really work unless everyone acts in their own self-interest.

Capitalism takes a sin and tries to make it ‘not a sin’.

And by the way, Jesus never condemned homosexuality at all. If you want to play the ‘he never said anything explicit’ game, it works both ways.

—Myca

Yes, exactly.

Take any argument from history against gay marriage and replace ‘homosexual relations’ with ‘miscegenation’, proper social role of marriage with proper social roles of husbands and wives, and the fallacy will become apparent.

Not really sure what you mean.

It’s interesting how anti-gay activists propose what is actually a step back in our conception of marriage, in that it be not out of ‘desire’ - which in a non-prurient mind translates to ‘love’ - but fulfilling some sort of social obligation

I am not an anti-gay activist. I am not advocating any particular role for fathers or mothers, or men or women, but we can either have a model of family that assures a solid network of relatives, or we can have a model of family that allows the primary caregivers to make day to day qualitative judgments about how much pleasure they get from being a part of their families, and stay or go on that basis.

That passage is called, in the Bible, the parable of the talents. Call me nuts, but I think it is meant to be interpreted as a parable about talents.

Conversly, that story of the rich man who asks Jesus what he must do to enter heaven and is told that he must sell all his posessions and give the money to the poor is presented as fact. I find it interesting that most people who call themselves biblical literalists believe in interpreting stated parables literally but interprete actuall events ans having an alagorical meaning.

I bet you believe in interpreting the Constitution as strictly as you interpret the Bible, don’t you?

Seriously; yes, Jesus condemned wealth. But he also praised it’s proper use:

Luke 19:11-27:

While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’
“But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’ “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it. “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’ ” ‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’ “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’ “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’ “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’ “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’ “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’ ” ‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’ “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”

God wants you to use your gifts, even if those gifts includes money.

Myca, I’ll use my personal history as an example. Grandpa was a man under great stress and suffering great emotional difficulties because of his experiences in the service and the demands of a family and running a farm. Grandpa and grandma had seven children, and there was often a lot of anger in the house, and probably more whuppings than was deserved.

If we could look in on them when they were a young man and woman we might, with modern eyes, judge they they should divorce. And I can well believe from what I’ve heard about them that there were enough moments of stress and dismay that they might have went for it.

But would that have been better? There would be a period of relief, naturally. The farm would have been lost for sure. My father and each of his siblings would have been taught that the proper course of action when not getting along with each other is bugger off, and I know that most of them have had their share of tough times. The family would be divided. Mary could not have maintained the farm alone. The loss of the land would have economically impacted all of them; grandpa and grandma, my father and mother, three uncles, two aunts, and between them, to date, about forty of their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren would be poorer for it.

Would my father have stayed if grandfather had divorced? Would I have had the education and opportunity to own my house if grandpa’s acts had impoverished my father’s? Would my parents own theirs at this moment in time? Would I know my cousins and aunts and uncles and have the relationships with them that I do now, or in their own times of disagreement and crisis would they also have parted ways and frittered away their days in solitary lives, or in one temporary relationship after another in a search for the personal ideal as is so common today? We, all of us, would be poorer people.

To an outside observer, everything would look normal though. Someone else would be driving my car, living in my home. Someone else would be living in my parent’s home and driving their cars. No one would think it odd if someone else, not us, were living the lives we now hold. And they could therefore say ‘Look! Life goes on! Divorce does no harm!’

That didn’t happen of course. Grandpa and grandma never divorced. Mom and pop didn’t divorce. None of my aunts and uncles divorced. Despite all the hardship we endured we are solid in our togetherness, and long after the day to day heartaches are gone there is only the knowledge that we are family and we stick together. Grandpa and grandma never failed their family when it counted.

As opposed to all the rich guys Jesus praised for accumulating money NOT for its own sake? The condemnation of the rich is very general, and what is being condemned is not obsession with wealth, or attitudes about wealth. It is wealth.

What’s interesting about the ‘poor will always be with us’ that conservatives love to quote (damn, I forgot about it in my initial post) is that it was a clear example of Jesus rejecting sexism - Jesus’ followers did not think Mary of Bethany worthy to perfume Jesus’ feet, whereas Jesus did. Conservatives miss the obvious point of the passage and use it to extrapolate support for an ideology that goes against the fat stack of sentiment in the New Testament. The Sermon on the Mount is pretty clear that the poor are, not merely equal to, but morally superior to the rich. Getting rid of one’s possessions was a prerequisite to being an early follower of Jesus, so to claim that Jesus did not advocate wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor requires very creative gymnastics with the Gospel.

Correct. Which is why I didn’t say it.”

So it is impossible to both be wealthy and serve God? Just so we’re clear.

And it’s less convenient for some more than others. You being ‘others’.

“Of course not. But the historical variations you are referring to have less in common with our modern definitions of family than they do with traditional.”

Take any argument from history against gay m”Jack, it is far from convenient.”

And it’s less convenient for some more than others. You being ‘others’.

“Of course not. But the historical variations you are referring to have less in common with our modern definitions of family than they do with traditional.”

Take any argument from history against gay marriage and replace ‘homosexual relations’ with ‘miscegenation’, proper social role of marriage with proper social roles of husbands and wives, and the fallacy will become apparent. It’s interesting how anti-gay activists propose what is actually a step back in our conception of marriage, in that it be not out of ‘desire’ - which in a non-prurient mind translates to ‘love’ - but fulfilling some sort of social obligation of the sort not seen since a woman’s biggest selling point were those ‘huge tracts of land’ mentioned in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

“responsibility to family is not considered optional”

Responsibility to family in the sense of emotional, financial, and moral obligations to real life spouses, children, parents, relatives, loved ones? Or responsibility to an abstract concept vaguely defined as to serve the supremacist fantasies of bitter old men? Perhaps disagreement only arises from loose definitions of basic terms.

The options of that homosexual child you mention, out of a commendable reach for bipartisanship, are severely curtailed by those who purport to be all for capital ‘f’ Family. Hell, some won’t even let public schools teach anti-gay bullying programs to their students.