Sunday, December 5, 2010
You are not what you own
By mixing esteem with consumerism our culture does not just buy for function and comfort, it buys for material validation; it buys to impress and gain status. Jealous people covet the jealousy of others. Prestige is often the acquisition of envy from others. It has gone way out of control. Too many people are caught in the game of 'look at me.' And it is a massive game, a contest of control and captivation of the potential audience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I was in full agreement… until the author got it all backwards. He started going down hill when he stated that gun ownership was vicarious masculinity. Gun ownership is as smart as considering the protection of yourself and family in many aspects, considering your ability to hunt and provide, and the consideration of an intelligent investment. Gun ownership is a responsibility, a privilege, and should be accompanied by the proper attitude- one of seriousness, consideration, respect, and gratitude. If a man does this, those in opposition (potentially this author) have malevolent intentions or are just ignorant.
The author claims that “western religions” break down a person’s self worth and replace it with obedience. He obviously has next to no knowledge of Christianity (often considered a “western religion” while its geographic origin is the origin of man and arguably more eastern than western). Christ’s teachings are the exact solution to the author’s originally posed moral, social, economic problems! Christ’s death solidified a person’s self worth! He taught love and peace while promoting a steadfast hold to Godly morality (staying unstained by worldly ways). Christ spoke and lived against material value and worldly pride. The author then goes on to quote an eastern religion (which is in alignment with Christ’s teaching) as the solution. I agree with his attack of foolishness, but recognize his misplaced solution.
I agree that the solution starts with the individual as the author states, but believe his comments on who owns you are misdirected. Who owns you is not based on who is paying you for your time spent in work. Labor is man’s lot now. If individuals hold to proper values and have dedication to work hard throughout life, we could collectively increase the efficiency and quality of society. Working 40 hours or more is not a display of slavery- but a display of duty as a member of society and as a participant on this planet.
I agree with most of that. I link to a lot of things that I don't agree with too! Some people are more biased against things that they've had negative experiences with. I still enjoy hearing different takes on things.
I was wondering what you think about a possible conflict or catch-22 about "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and following Christ and staying unstained by worldly ways as you put it.
I can’t really think of a conflict or catch 22 in regards to paying government and following Christ. A scenario that some may think of as difficult is the fact that taxes are paid by an individual to the governing body, which then uses those funds to act in many ways that are not in agreement with Christ’s teachings/true morality. Some may see this as a Christian funding evil. Jesus’ command to “give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” in response to tax questions is so great in part because He brought attention to why money has “value” at all. We work for money and use it in exchange for goods and services, but it only has value because a governing body says it does and that statement is accepted by the governed. God’s creation has value because God said that “it was good” and all of mankind accept this as shown in the way we live, preserve our life, etc.
The Israelites were commanded to give to the poor generously and without a grudging heart in the Old Testament, we are commanded to “give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you” (Mt 5) and that “if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back” (Lk 6). Even beyond that Jesus told us to pray for those who mistreat us and if someone slaps you on the cheek, turn to them the other also. So from the standpoint of taxes, I could view taxes as paying the government what is the government’s to begin with. I could view it as paying a debt (Rm 13). I could view it as being slapped in the face, in which case I should turn my other to potentially be slapped as well. I could even view it as not refusing to give to one asks. In any of these cases we really don’t have grounds to refuse outright.
On the other hand, the government could be using the funds to commit evil or unjust acts. In this case we are still without just cause to refuse payment of taxes. We are commanded to give to those in need, those who ask, and our enemies who may mistreat us with no regard to how the receiver might utilize those gifts. The poor man who receives a few dollars might use it to score some illegal substance or buy a mask to use to conceal his identity while robbing a bank. I should not give based on conditions. In reality I have to admit that I struggle personally with being willing to give so freely and to not demand the return of items that are mine. It isn’t easy. If I am to be Christ-like as a proclaimed follower, how can I give so selectively when He did not? He gave all life even though some use it for evil, some waste it, some spend their time plotting evil- like Cain. God gave life and ability to Cain and he used it to kill Abel. God did not give only on condition that Cain not kill others. This is why Judgment is justified. Judgment makes straight the results of free will. It must exist to balance the equation in the end. Even though I feel like judging now, I have to remind myself that judgment is not mine and neither is selective, begrudgingly, conditional giving. Is this what you were thinking about or did I go off in left field? Let me know if it was another question altogether.
So I thought "neither a borrower nor a lender be" was in the Bible...apparently not. But I did find a few others that don't seem to fit about not being authorized to refuse debt:
Romans 13:8
"Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law."
(It seems you can never owe nothing if you are always in debt...our monetary system itself is debt. All instances of giving freely and collecting tithes and such seem to be mainly for the purpose of caring for the poor and sick.)
Psalm. 15:1, 5 "O LORD, who may abide in your tent? Who may dwell on your holy hill? … (those) who do not lend money at interest, and do not take a bribe against the innocent."
(There are dozens more like this in the old testament...is this considered irrelevant by new testament Christians?)
2nd Cor. 6:14
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"
(To me this conflicts with the idea that despite "Caesar" using tax money for "evil", Christians are obliged to contribute.)
Well, I thought I posted my last writing, but I just lost it all. I’ll be less wordy this time anyway. :-)
Good thoughts. On Romans 13, I don’t think he is talking about monetary debt directly (especially in the short term). We are always encountering some debt- the time between goods or services received and payment given (restaurants, car repair, etc.) Jesus mentions debt in prayer (Mat 6)- “forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors”. This could be monetary or otherwise, but I get the impression that we are not to have an abusive attitude toward debt. We should settle debts fairly and quickly.
Concerning Psalm 15, the OT approves lending at interest to foreigners and not to fellow Israelites. Jesus takes this even further in the New Testament when He discusses loving enemies and not treating foreigners worse than friends as others do. I would say Christians have an obligation to not lend at interest. I agree.
In 2nd Cor. 6, he is talking about idol worship here but I’m sure it has farther reaches too. In my lost post, I had many examples of why our money is not our own, but the main point was that Jesus tried to point out that money was Caesar’s to begin with (as it was manufactured by government, his image, etc.), so we are not contributing to government, only returning a portion that is government’s to begin with. Also, if we are to “owe nothing” except love, we should strive to appropriately pay taxes so as not to incur a tax debt.
Check out this interesting study on money and the Bible http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/nelson/money_nelson.pdf
Interesting. Another thought I had concerned the part where you talked about turning the other cheek in regards to taxes, etc. It made me think of Jesus instructing his disciples to sell their cloaks in order to buy swords. This gives me the impression that Jesus wanted them to be able to physically protect themselves from harm from some outside force. Not to be cute, but I don't think it could have been protection from wildlife, so it had to have been for protection from other people. If it was from people, the only likely candidates for a physical attack on Jesus and his disciples would be robbers or soldiers. This does not seem to support the idea of giving money to those would seek to force it from you.
It also makes me wonder how you would keep from applying the turn-the-other-cheek interpretation from criminal law. I know that you support laws against certain behavior, including theft or robbery, but why? And why actively engage in habits, thoughts, or even possibly an aspect of your career that seek to re-enforce the natural instinct of defending yourself, your family, or your property from harm or theft?
I had forgotten about Jesus instructing the apostles to buy swords. This is a very interesting passage. Luke 22:35-38 says this:
Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough.” he replied.
Jesus could have been trying to prepare them for the fact that when they would be out spreading the Word on there own, some may try to kill them (which happened) or maybe could be extrapolated to an audience wider than just the apostles to mean all of His followers from then on encountering hardships and being numbered with the “transgressors” or “criminals” as some translations say by preaching Christ’s teachings. In either case, it doesn’t seem to have a direct connection to protection of their money, but more their mission or role as a follower. I would suggest that this is much more likely at this point than robbers or government officials demanding money, and as history told became the inevitable end of (arguably all but one of) the apostles. Some of the gruesome accounts of how the apostles (and other Christians) were tortured and put to death make it seem like money was the least of their concerns and causes for physical protection attempts, battles, and deaths.
As far as applying the turn-the-other-cheek interpretation to criminal law goes, I would make no exception. When criminal behavior is committed, forgiveness is commanded of Christians and the turn-the-other-cheek mentality applicable, but that in no way excuses the criminal from the repercussions/ consequences of his actions. Victims’ families often are noted to forgive a murderer before watching the execution of said murderer. We do not neglect the physical or spiritual consequences of crime and sin, but to withhold forgiveness is to be a hypocrite in the worst way (see Matt 18:21-35, the parable of the unmerciful servant). A Christian has the responsibility to protect and guard as we spread the Word. “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” (John 15) That may be in the protection of my wife and children or possibly my own life I suppose, but I don’t think I would ever bring myself to trade my life in protection of money though.
Post a Comment