Can you be both rich and Christian?

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Can you be both rich and Christian?

Post #1

Post by 2ndRateMind »

So, suppose there are X amount of $ in the world. And the world produces $Y per year in wealth. And there are Z people for this money to go around.

Then a prima facie 'just' disbursement of that wealth would involve everyone getting a net worth of $X/Z, and an annual income of $Y/Z.

This works out at a net worth of around $34,000 per person, and around $16,000 per year income. The allowance for the conventional nuclear family of 4 would therefore be 4 times those figures.

If we extract more than these numbers from the global economy, we are denying someone else their 'fair' share. So, can you be both rich and Christian?

Best wishes, 2RM.

User avatar
Peds nurse
Site Supporter
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:27 am
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Can you be both rich and Christian?

Post #2

Post by Peds nurse »

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

Hello 2ndratemind!


Yes, I think that you can be rich and be a Christian. Having wealth is not a sin, but loving money more than God or people is! If one thinks about it, people in the OT had some pretty substantial wealth, and one of those being King David. God called him a man after his own heart!

Wishing you well!

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Can you be both rich and Christian?

Post #3

Post by bluethread »

2ndRateMind wrote: So, suppose there are X amount of $ in the world. And the world produces $Y per year in wealth. And there are Z people for this money to go around.

Then a prima facie 'just' disbursement of that wealth would involve everyone getting a net worth of $X/Z, and an annual income of $Y/Z.

This works out at a net worth of around $34,000 per person, and around $16,000 per year income. The allowance for the conventional nuclear family of 4 would therefore be 4 times those figures.

If we extract more than these numbers from the global economy, we are denying someone else their 'fair' share. So, can you be both rich and Christian?

Best wishes, 2RM.
The equation is fallacious. The economy is dynamic and not connected to currency but to the supply of and demand for goods and services. Currency only facilitates that exchange in a more efficient manner than barter. Also, distributing that currency equally without respect to productivity reduces the amount and quality of goods and services in an economy.

That said, focusing on riches is, i.e. currency, quantity of goods and/or control of services, is the problem. The focus should be on wealth creation not riches. What I believe Yeshua was saying is that it is difficult for a rich man to enter Adonai's kingdom, because he is focused on currency, quantity of goods and/or control of services. This is what is meant by the idiom "an evil eye". If, on the other hand, one is employing currency, goods and services in the economy, that is admirable, because it expands the economy and helps to distribute goods and services.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Can you be both rich and Christian?

Post #4

Post by 2ndRateMind »

bluethread wrote:
2ndRateMind wrote: So, suppose there are X amount of $ in the world. And the world produces $Y per year in wealth. And there are Z people for this money to go around.

Then a prima facie 'just' disbursement of that wealth would involve everyone getting a net worth of $X/Z, and an annual income of $Y/Z.

This works out at a net worth of around $34,000 per person, and around $16,000 per year income. The allowance for the conventional nuclear family of 4 would therefore be 4 times those figures.

If we extract more than these numbers from the global economy, we are denying someone else their 'fair' share. So, can you be both rich and Christian?

Best wishes, 2RM.
The equation is fallacious. The economy is dynamic and not connected to currency but to the supply of and demand for goods and services. Currency only facilitates that exchange in a more efficient manner than barter. Also, distributing that currency equally without respect to productivity reduces the amount and quality of goods and services in an economy...
I would disagree that there is any fallacy, here. The way goods and services are rationed in a free-market economy is by the ownership of currency. When 1% of the world's population own as much currency as the remaining 99% put together, effectively commanding half the world's productive capacity, and fully 1/3 of the world's population are therefore hungry, malnourished or starving, then I really think we ought, at the very least, to question the way currency is distributed.

Don't get me wrong; I am not against wealth. On the contrary, in my ideal world, everyone would be wealthy. But I am against allowing some to accumulate inordinate wealth, while others cannot afford to feed their children.

I truly do not see how one can honour Jesus' second great commandment, to love one's neighbour as oneself, and still hoard riches, given the economic plight of so many.

Best wishes, 2RM.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Can you be both rich and Christian?

Post #5

Post by bluethread »

2ndRateMind wrote:
I would disagree that there is any fallacy, here. The way goods and services are rationed in a free-market economy is by the ownership of currency. When 1% of the world's population own as much currency as the remaining 99% put together, effectively commanding half the world's productive capacity, and fully 1/3 of the world's population are therefore hungry, malnourished or starving, then I really think we ought, at the very least, to question the way currency is distributed.
No, in a free market the way goods and services are distributed is by private ownership rights to those goods and services. Currency only has value if it is accepted as such. We are finding this out as economies attempt to move to a digital economy. Governments standardize currency in order to retain control. This is why counterfeiting is illegal. As currency becomes digital, this becomes more difficult. One can redistribute the currency all one wishes, but the more that is done the more the markets lose faith in the currency and shift to alternate currencies. Thus, one of the downsides of redistributing currency is that it devalues the currency.
Don't get me wrong; I am not against wealth. On the contrary, in my ideal world, everyone would be wealthy. But I am against allowing some to accumulate inordinate wealth, while others cannot afford to feed their children.

I truly do not see how one can honour Jesus' second great commandment, to love one's neighbour as oneself, and still hoard riches, given the economic plight of so many.
Again, you are conflating two, if not three, different concepts. First, currency is nothing more than a means of exchange. Woodpecker heads were once a form of currency. I doubt you are arguing for a redistribution of woodpecker heads. Second, if one has control of a large amount of goods, which could include various kinds of currency, one could be said to be rich. However, if one is wealthy, one is not just sitting on a pile of goods, but is employing those goods in economic activity. If one takes those goods from the wealthy to distribute it to others, one is not helping the economy. One is probably hurting the economy, because there is no guarantee that those others will invest those goods any better than the wealthy person. In fact, the wealthy person, due to greater experience and profit motivation, is probably employing those assets more effectively than most people.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Can you be both rich and Christian?

Post #6

Post by 2ndRateMind »

bluethread wrote:
2ndRateMind wrote:
I would disagree that there is any fallacy, here. The way goods and services are rationed in a free-market economy is by the ownership of currency. When 1% of the world's population own as much currency as the remaining 99% put together, effectively commanding half the world's productive capacity, and fully 1/3 of the world's population are therefore hungry, malnourished or starving, then I really think we ought, at the very least, to question the way currency is distributed.
No, in a free market the way goods and services are distributed is by private ownership rights to those goods and services. Currency only has value if it is accepted as such.
Of course. And the value of those ownership rights are measured in currency (let us say $, rather than woodpecker heads or cowrie shells, for the sake of the argument).
bluethread wrote:Thus, one of the downsides of redistributing currency is that it devalues the currency.
I do not think you have justified this statement, only asserted it. Perhaps you can expound at greater length.
Don't get me wrong; I am not against wealth. On the contrary, in my ideal world, everyone would be wealthy. But I am against allowing some to accumulate inordinate wealth, while others cannot afford to feed their children.

I truly do not see how one can honour Jesus' second great commandment, to love one's neighbour as oneself, and still hoard riches, given the economic plight of so many.
bluethread wrote:Again, you are conflating two, if not three, different concepts. First, currency is nothing more than a means of exchange...
Exactly, and the more one has of the means of exchange, or goods that are valuable in terms of the means of exchange, and the more $ one controls, the richer one is.

bluethread wrote:However, if one is wealthy, one is not just sitting on a pile of goods, but is employing those goods in economic activity.


Not necessarily, but I agree it might be so in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, I cannot see why 1 individual investing, say, $1M is preferable to 10,000 individuals each investing $100. We have the technology to manage the (marginal) administrative overhead, these days.
bluethread wrote:If one takes those goods from the wealthy to distribute it to others, one is not helping the economy.


This is the meat of our disagreement. If one redistributes wealth to where it is needed, then more people spend more money on stuff like food, uncontaminated drinking water, sanitation, books and classes for their children, and medicines to cure their family's ailments. Less people, true, spend less money on Porsche sports cars, and Caribbean holidays, and champagne. Overall though, in the short term, the economy is entirely unaffected because (roughly) the same amount of money gets spent. But over the longer term, the $ disenfranchised absolutely poor get to become productive members of society, which is to everyone's benefit, not only theirs, and the global economy grows.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Post Reply