The philosophy of Jesus vs. Ayn Rand: On Wealth
Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 1 month ago to Philosophy
Someone (sorry, I don't remember who) asked that we have more philosophical discussions here, so this is my attempt at doing so. If you're such an avowed atheist such that you cannot have a rational discussion and must resort to name calling and ad hominem attacks, then please stop reading this now and move along. However, if you would like to engage intellectually and rationally in a philosophical discussion, then I welcome your comments.
Oftentimes there are those who claim that religion is evil in that it decries money or the making of money, and claim that the essence of religion (or at least Christianity, but then if it is merely Christianity, what is the objection to other religions?) is altruism. Surely, you are familiar with the "Root of Money" speech by Francisco - I won't quote the entirety here, merely the claim that "Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears..." Which is a clear condemnation of altruism.
Matthew 6:24 states, in part, "You cannot serve God and wealth." Which many atheists take as you cannot be wealthy, thus you must give away your earnings but for a meager pittance to live on - you must be altruistic. I believe that this is a misunderstanding of the teaching about wealth. On the serving two masters - You can serve God which means to live a life of honesty, morality, and goodness; or you can serve money, which means to do whatever it takes to get ahead - lying, thievery, murder, etc. As so many are wont to do with this passage, it does not mean that you must take a vow of poverty or give all but a meager portion to live on to others. It also does not mean that if you have earned great wealth that you have not served God. This is a very simplistic view. In Matthew 19:23 "And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Hard, but not impossible. Hard because in the morality of the day one had to bribe, steal, lie - in essence be totally corrupt - to make much money. That was the culture of the time. If you were an honest person, you would likely be taken advantage of by those who were not. This was merely an acknowledgement of the world as it existed rather than a condemnation of hard work and high morality leading to becoming wealthy. On the contrary, it is likely that this very sentiment is what helped to lead to a less corrupt society and one that values honesty and truth instead of thievery and deceit.
Oftentimes there are those who claim that religion is evil in that it decries money or the making of money, and claim that the essence of religion (or at least Christianity, but then if it is merely Christianity, what is the objection to other religions?) is altruism. Surely, you are familiar with the "Root of Money" speech by Francisco - I won't quote the entirety here, merely the claim that "Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears..." Which is a clear condemnation of altruism.
Matthew 6:24 states, in part, "You cannot serve God and wealth." Which many atheists take as you cannot be wealthy, thus you must give away your earnings but for a meager pittance to live on - you must be altruistic. I believe that this is a misunderstanding of the teaching about wealth. On the serving two masters - You can serve God which means to live a life of honesty, morality, and goodness; or you can serve money, which means to do whatever it takes to get ahead - lying, thievery, murder, etc. As so many are wont to do with this passage, it does not mean that you must take a vow of poverty or give all but a meager portion to live on to others. It also does not mean that if you have earned great wealth that you have not served God. This is a very simplistic view. In Matthew 19:23 "And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Hard, but not impossible. Hard because in the morality of the day one had to bribe, steal, lie - in essence be totally corrupt - to make much money. That was the culture of the time. If you were an honest person, you would likely be taken advantage of by those who were not. This was merely an acknowledgement of the world as it existed rather than a condemnation of hard work and high morality leading to becoming wealthy. On the contrary, it is likely that this very sentiment is what helped to lead to a less corrupt society and one that values honesty and truth instead of thievery and deceit.
