As I understand it, making money is not evil, but greed or the love of money is. Fine distinction perhaps.
Interesting. I don't know if Jesus would find implemented capitalism any more evil than implemented communism. Pure capitalism leads to things that I think God deplores, no doubt. But it seems man's problem isnt' with either, but with his own nature, no matter the economic system. Jesus defied the money changers at the temple because he said they were an abomination to God. He wasn't mad at people for making money...he was mad that they turned the Temple into a marketplace. I don't see the social welfare platform of either party as being indicative of Christ's teachings. I don't think people who pay taxes feel compelled to do so in their hearts to help others. I don't know if people make the link. Christ addressed people's hearts, first and foremost. He said the poor would always be with us. He was concerned primarily with the glorification of God...not our own comforts here. Seen plainly by the sufferings of those who followed him closely. There were rich and poor in the early church. Those "haves" shared with those "have nots" as they had needs. That's a perfect model, as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't condemn rich people for having money...it doesn't condemn poor people for not having money. There is nothing inherently holy about being poor...particularly if jealousy and contempt take over and the acquisition of money becomes your "god." But in other areas of government, when I attempt to make an argument based on my faith I'm told, "Hey!! This isn't a Christian nation!! We're not all like you, Max! You can't force that on us!" As for the "eye of the needle" scripture...it's important to remember that it doesn't stop there. It goes like this: 24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 26The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?” 27Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” And finally...I agree with you entirely...you can't have arguments about these social issues without having your own sense of morality play a part in the deliberations. But don't tell that to the countless law school professors who told me it has no place. And don't tell that to the countless people who've said here and elsewhere that, "you can't legislate morality."
All that you have said, makes sense, but there are other ways to look at it. It is true that Jesus after cleansing the temple didnt' say that he was mad at people who made money. Or that to make money was bad. But neither did Jesus suggest to go out and make it. If we follow his example he lived on the handouts of others, and told his followers to do the same. He instructed them to go to towns and find people there who would support them. He spoke of wiping the dust of the feet in response to those who wouldn't support them. Jesus spoke about how hard it was for the rich to enter the kingdom of God. Jesus also talked about people giving up everything to follow him and the sacrifices they should make. He even mentions sacrificing one's own parents as the level of sacrifice people should make when following him. He also spoke about how much more the rich would have to give for their sacrifices to mean as much as what the poor sacrifice.
I agree, FB. There are certainly other ways to approach it. And there have been for roughly 2000 years. It seems to me it's the LOVE of money that he's concerned with. It's a huge distraction because it's tempting for rich and poor. If you're not willing to give up all you have for God, Christ seems to indicate that's a problem. If you're putting the pursuit of money, no matter your current financial station, above all else...Christ seems to indicate that's a problem. Having said that...He doesn't call EVERYONE to give up all they have. Remember that he called on people to tithe...not to hundreth. He gave credit to the widow for giving up all she had...and said that was more significant than those who were just giving a little. It was a credit to her faith. I don't see anything that suggests Jesus said, don't go make a living for yourself. He had specific instructions for the disciples during their 3 year ministry. But that was a VERY specific period in time. Afterward, Paul was a tentmaker and talked about how he normally refused being paid for ministry because he could support himself otherwise. Jesus also told parables that indicate that wasting talents was not a good thing. People are compensated for talents. To employ a rich=bad, poor=good mentality is to employ a legalism that Christ argued so much against. "Do not judge by mere appearances," he said. He talked about righteousness coming from within....but noted that those things on the outside (wealth, pride, etc.) as huge distractions from following him. And yes...there is HUGE sacrifice in following Christ...but I find it's not the financial sacrifices that are the hardest. Those are on the surface. It's the full-out trust that is hardest to get to...oftentimes, I feel like He's used financial situations to illustrate that to me, personally.
Anyway someone posted that i was wrong about Robert Duvall being in the movie "network" ... i had exams so i could'nt post how right i was.... ...you must have been thinking of some other movie then.... its a great movie and will tell you about how corporations control the goverment... in a way.... funny they predicted how corporations would be in the future in 1976..and they were right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(movie)
No, I was thinking of Network, but I was thinking of the central character played by Peter Finch who get people shouting from the windows: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" But you were right about Duvall being it it; I guess he played some evil corporate executive. I don't even remember his role.
I can't believe nobody has yet quoted one of my favorite chestnuts: "...a corporation has neither an arse to kick nor a soul to damn." I read it first in a Learned Hand opinion, but I think someone else might have written it first. Really sums up the problem, though. No, corporations aren't evil. But there is a lack of effectiveness for traditional societal and governmental coercive measures with regard to corporations. Corporations just face relatively weaker consequences - and the decision-makers themselves rarely face punishment. Without effective deterrents, their behavior is often reprehensible. Not evil, just a problem of deterrence.
