The Root of All Evil?

Jesus was not trying to teach anyone how to prosper within the mainstream economic system. Jesus was radically preaching against the social order and conventional wisdom of his time. The economic, political, and religious systems were deeply intertwined. Built into the purity system that structured society was the necessary marginalization of those deemed to be 'impure' (necessary because in order for there to be a "pure" end of the spectrum there must be an "impure" one as well). There were many ways to be impure, but some of them involved paying "tithes" (ie, taxes) to the temple. The purity system was economic as well as religious.

Jesus's issue with those who propsered in this system was that they did it at the expense of those who were marginalized, and they felt good about it because of the "impure" story they told about the outcasts, in effect dehumanizing them. Nobody was wealthy without participating in this purity system, and no one could participate without being complicit in the dehumanization of the outcasts.

Jessu rejected this system, saying everyone is equally human and equally deserving of respect, love, compassion, etc. So, I disagree with:

[ QUOTE ]
they are both inconsistent with Jesus' supposed attempt to help the poor gain a better life for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reality was that no good life existed for the outcasts in the current society. Jesus was trying to create a better life for the poor by undermining the conventional social order. It wasn't supposed to be an economics lesson...

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Although your implication that had the woman kept the copper coins for herself she would have improved her chances of "making a living" indicates that you don't really understand the situation of a widow in Jesus's time (women had no rights, they were defined by their husband. A widow has no husband, she is [censored])...I simply disagree that "Giving all you have is not terribly meaningful if you have nothing to give." I think it is incredibly meaningful (to be fair, so is giving all you have when you have lots to give).

[/ QUOTE ]

We are speaking in relatives here. My point is that giving all when you have lots is more meaningful than giving all when you have nothing. Because of that, there has to be some fraction of a rich man's wealth that is equal in meaningful, spiritual value to the old woman's two cents.

Of course Jesus doesn't bother pointing that out, and says we should just be broke. Good lesson.

(sorry if this shows up twice, I thought I just posted it but it didn't seem to work)

Don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I'm bored at work...

Again, although Jesus is talking about money, I don't think he is trying to give an economics lesson. Nor is he trying to give a formula for some percentage of net worth or absolute amount of giving that will earn you God's love.

You say giving a lot when you have a lot is more meaningful. I think you say this because it sounds like a greater sacrifice than giving up two coins when they are all you have. I think I see where you are coming from on this, but I also think it has almost nothing to do with what Jesus is talking about.

Jesus wasn't looking for a one-off act of generous giving, just to have people return to their usual ways of doing things. His beef was that the people with all the wealth have all the wealth because of the way other members of society are victimized and scapegoated. The only way to be wealthy was to be comlplicit in the scapegoating. To give sums of money (even very large ones) to the poor because you pity them, but then to return to participating in the system which marginalizes them, is not righteous. (tangent - I think one who is righteous is one who acts justly, and based on a conversation I was reading in another thread I think it would be very interesting to talk about various ideas of justice.)

Jesus was asking his followers to totally reject the mainsteam social order. The widow was never allowed to be included in the first place, but she selflessly gives all she has anyway. If the rich person does as jesus says, and sells all he has and follows him, then the formerly rich person is righteous as far as Jesus is concerned....but a gift of any size from someone who is still participating in the system has very little spiritual value.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
His beef was that the people with all the wealth have all the wealth because of the way other members of society are victimized and scapegoated. The only way to be wealthy was to be comlplicit in the scapegoating.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is wrong. We know this is wrong. This is basic economics. No one's going to lead a happy life if we're all broke, and that's exactly what Jesus is asking us to do; give, and accept nothing back.

[ QUOTE ]
But this is wrong. We know this is wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

I stared writing a reply but I realized I don't know to which this you are referring..

Are you saying that wealthy people were not complicit in the scapegoating of the "impure"?

Or, is "this" just referring again to the idea that you can be happy without money?

[ QUOTE ]
This is basic economics

[/ QUOTE ]

Same question - are you saying the idea that happiness comes from money is basic economics? Or are you saying that a society structured around scapegoating certain classes of people is basic economics? Or something else?

FWIW, I definitely disagree with this statement: [ QUOTE ]
No one's going to lead a happy life if we're all broke

[/ QUOTE ]

[hmkpoker]

I was disagreeing with Jesus' entire statement that we should give all we have to others. What is wrong with having a successful career, a nice portfolio of assets, a good, productive, fulfilling job, giving to charity now and then, helping people out, living in moderation, and just generally being a good, happy person? Why must we dump everything to the poor (ironically making us poor ourselves) and live in poverty when we know that this is not in (most of) our best interests, and isn't damaging to the economy?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If this is the case, then Luke 21 is non sequitur. Commending a poor person for giving away all she has perpetuates her inability to make a living.

The little she had was hardly enough to be a living, and there were very few, if any, ways for a poor woman to make a living in that time period.

Also, my initial argument still stands. Giving all you have is not terribly meaningful if you have nothing to give.


[/ QUOTE ]

The point He was making is that it isn't the absolute amount you give that determines the size of the gift in God's eyes.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Jesus acknowledges that it is harder for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven, here because they have more to give

Based on other words of Jesus, the reason it's hard for a rich man to enter heaven is because "You can't serve two masters - you will love the one and hate the other, or vice versay". It's clearly the rich young ruler's love of money that is the problem, not the amount.

Also, they are both inconsistent with Jesus' supposed attempt to help the poor gain a better life for themselves. Jesus promises perfection (Mat 19:21) with going broke as a prerequisite. Economically, this is a horrible lesson.


[/ QUOTE ]

He is not setting up that a pre-condition of salvation is being poor. This passage should be read in context with passages like "If your right hand offends you, cut it off". Figuratively speaking, riches was the young man's right hand. In another place Jesus says "He who would save his life shall lose it, he who loses his life for My sake shall find it". All of these verses teach the same thing - if you place anything above God - riches, your right hand, your life , and from other verses, your father, mother, sister or brother - anything, you can't be saved.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If this is the case, then Luke 21 is non sequitur. Commending a poor person for giving away all she has perpetuates her inability to make a living.

The little she had was hardly enough to be a living, and there were very few, if any, ways for a poor woman to make a living in that time period.

Also, my initial argument still stands. Giving all you have is not terribly meaningful if you have nothing to give.


[/ QUOTE ]

The point He was making is that it isn't the absolute amount you give that determines the size of the gift in God's eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Acknowledged. But, as discussed in my schpiel with ross3dk, a billionaire's entire fortune should mean a lot more than a pauper's two cents. Therefore, the spiritual equivalent (read: the amount in God's eyes) of the widow's change to a rich person should be a fraction of his fortune. How much exactly I can't say, but it's basic logic and the principle stands. I would describe the spiritual value of the gifts as follows:

billionaire's whole fortune > pauper's change

therefore,

(less than whole fortune) = pauper's change

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course Jesus doesn't bother pointing that out, and says we should just be broke. Good lesson.


[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't tell her to give the money. He was commenting on the fact that giving all you have, even if it's 2 cents, is more in God's eyes than giving a lot if you're rich.