Okay, so I’m willing to listen and think about it, when the CEO of Barclays, John Varley, gets up at St. Martin-in-the-Fields in London and says “Is Christianity and fair reward compatible? Yes.”
I’m even willing to listen and think about it when Lord Griffiths, of Goldman Sachs, stands up in St. Paul’s Cathedral to insist that “we have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieving greater prosperity and opportunity for all.” The preferential option for the poor may well be best achieved by increasing universal prosperity.
But Griffiths is just not going to get much traction for the idea when he uses this phrasing: “The injunction of Jesus to love others as ourselves is an endorsement of self-interest.”
November 6th, 2009 | 12:02 pm
Come on Jody, know your place. St Paul’s in London is selling tickets to hear atheist John Rutter conduct his requiem (http://www.stpauls.co.uk/Visits-Events/Events/The-Royal-Philharmonic-Orchestra-at-St-Pauls-Cath) and they charge you to take a look (http://www.stpauls.co.uk/FAQS) (well, they prayed a lot before they decided to require cash for admission) so when Baron Griffiths of Fforestfach (yes there are two F’s, some folks are so important they get extra consonants) said “The injunction of Jesus to love others as ourselves is an endorsement of self-interest” at St. Paul’s he was at least mentioning the Savior. Oh, Savior, related to “save,” and that means. . .banks, so..oh my golly gosh, the guys who head up the banks are saviours and..shezahm, why didn’t I know this before?…they deserve my all! I hear music….”king of kings and lord of lords, and he shall reign. . . ” Yes, your lordship, I’m standing…hat off, head down; hope you are too Jody.
November 6th, 2009 | 10:26 pm
I’ve often wondered at the religious tongue-clucking over the disparity between rich and poor. On what Christian principle is this condemnation of the discrepancy based?
I’ve also wondered if, given a choice of these options: 1) less discrepancy of wealth, and 2) the present discrepancy of wealth, with the poor 50% richer than in option 1– whether they would still take option 1. I’m guessing many would still take option 1, on the basis of this elusive principle of that Christianity abhors discrepancy in wealth. I’m guessing they would do so without first consulting the poor to see what their choice would be. They would do all this while reciting their mantra, “preferential option…”
It so happens that economic theory, based on tons of empirical evidence, tells us that the choice between the above 2 options are about what choices really are in the world we live in. It seems that the best way to raise the poor from their poverty is to set free the talents of those with the aptitude to succeed economically. Their success results in better opportunities for the poor. The catch is that part of the freedom is the freedom to reward their superior contribution.
If people think that Christianity means we force our governments to impose a certain amount of equality of economic outcomes, then they should consider this. The equality which real socialist systems have achieved have invariably meant that their citizens were more or less equally poor, not equally well off.
November 7th, 2009 | 12:14 am
” ‘For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away, even that he hath’.
This passage of course refers to the acquisition of more knowledge of the truth as theologians tell us; but the Money Kings of Wall Street like to give its interpretation a little twist in their favor, and say that it refers to the acquisition of more greenbacks, by the big fellows from the little ones.
In fact this class of people appear to hold the opinion that if they would succeed in anything questionable or crooked, there is nothing like misinterpreting the scriptures their own way, so as to apparently justify them in their rascality before the public.
The connection of such men with churches…has done more to spread infidelity and cast ridicule upon the good cause of the church than almost anything else.
The success of this class of gamblers has an influence for evil upon the business world that is little realize, success through their methods being a contradiction to the good old business maxim that ‘Honesty is the best policy’ and a travesty upon it.”
November 7th, 2009 | 11:46 am
Hmmm. I guess that’s why He said, “It is better to give than receive.” And why he praised the widow’s mite. And why he suggested that Christians walk the extra mile, and why he told the young rich man to sell all he had, give it to the poor, and follow Him.
Yup. Christianity, the self-interest religion.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact