Agree and disagree. I’m a believer in the free market. If you claim business owners should hire workers rather than automate, then that could extend to any technology. For example, I work in construction. Teams of people used to hand draw construction plans (every copy). Then computers allowed for AutoCAD and a significantlysmaller team of people can draft construction plans.
Discussion
Yeah that's the upside, for sure. I just think its interesting that automation is driven, at least in part, by minimum wages. Minimum wages are only justified by inflation - it wouldn't matter if someone was willing to work for less if, on one end, their savings held or gained value, or on the other end, the government didn't constantly need the devaluation of their debt. I should add unions to that - same reasons and effects as min wages. The need for inflation also justifies the violation of the free market via regulation - regulations are entry barriers for new companies, which prevents deflation from competition and drives up costs, which get passed along, and the resultant inflation reduces the real value of existing debt. The cost, however, is the wellbeing of the people - fewer jobs from fewer companies, which compounds in a negative way, preventing people from having the resources to invent new things or build new communities. The effect results in the crest of a wave, in the form of homelessness, abortions, failed marriages, people that would have existed not existing, suicides, drug abuse, nihilism, and I'd even argue things like churches losing the depth of their traditions - that's because any transaction carries the information of all transactions that preceded it, which can be viewed as the storage and transmission of energy, which is being stolen by the state. Our options for combating this are limited : using bitcoin is one strategy, but it will take time to accomplish its goals ; in the meantime, the silent genocide continues, so the other options are important - education and hiring people even though a machine can probably do it better. I'm not saying its rational in the current paradigm - its only rational as a strategy to change the paradigm.
One thought. Very amateurish.
In the previous chapter 16 Luke describes the “rich man” and Lazerus. My reading was that the rich man was removed from the world Lazarus lived in, to the point we are not given any indication “Rich” even saw Lazarus (outside his gate). Rich was not necessarily mean or communist. For all we know he was an excellent employer and family man and whatever. We know he lived in luxury and a part of that was precluding interaction with the poor.
I think at every level of wealth or riches, this interaction with the poor (define in any reasonable way you think) becomes more and more narrow.
At a certain point the nature of extreme wealth makes “seeing” extreme poverty so unlikely it becomes impossible without grave.
And yet if poverty is in some way used for our good, and we are physical beings, we have to see / hear / feel the poor to know them.
These make it hard, near impossible in the world without grace for the rich to “see” suffering. And as the chasm gets wider it fulfills the idea that sending more poor or humble will not work.
Akin to this - there are things in the world children see, or hear about, that bring tears to their eyes. There is poverty in the streets that make them want to reach out and help. These same things, that would have made my heart break as a child, I confess now make me check my car lock or roll up my window. However we define rich, it’s created a measurable chasm apart from the extremes.
We have been educated - we need Lazarus much more than Lazarus needs us in this life.
Interesting tie in with Lazarus! Can you tell us more about why we need Lazarus more than Lazarus needs us?
Also, let's not call each other's notes amateurish. Instead just try to have the humility to see their perspective. Yes, my orc has purple hair and works in HR.
I apologize for the misunderstanding.
I was referring to my own note as an amateur take - not anyone else’s. I do not have any credentials to interpret scripture is all I meant by that.
I think it’s hard to take things out of context. Just before that passage, is the unusual passage of the dishonest steward where the master commends the dishonest steward and says “I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.”
The more wealth you have – and this isn’t necessarily money, although that is a part of it – the more you are required to steward it on earth towards friendship. In both passages, it’s a given that this wealth is only temporary. In both passages, those who had none were not held to much account.
I think we need the poor because even if their existence is a result of our own fallen nature, it is allowed to persist so that a great a good can come from it. But that greater good involves proper stewardship. It’s not so easy to say give it all away – that can actually lead to worse outcomes. We have other obligations, but besides feeding the poor – we have obligations to know the truth, and our tools for getting to The Truth in this world involve getting closer and closer through uncovering worldly truths. And the more that you have, wealth, however, defined, but most especially monetary because that is the most flexible, the more you have to hone your prudence to deploy that in virtuous ways.
But I think one temptation of material wealth is to delude yourself into thinking that you could do even greater good, if you had even more material wealth, and so you delay action with the excuse that you are accumulating more so that someday you will have more and more leverage. I think that’s possible, but I do think to go down that pathway without succumbing to making it all about the accumulation of the wealth does become more and more like threading and needle.
If you know the poor, if you really know them, if you shake hands are up shoulders with them, it grounds you. It rains you in. If you keep them outside, away from you, away from contact, you can live inside your head, wrapped up in your thoughts, imagination of self glory, and never actually do any good. We need Acts of the apostles more than just grand plans
I think the idea of forgoing riches is due to it being an Earthly desire. When we die, none of it matters.
mmm maybe 🤔
But where does Jesus say the Kingdom of heaven is?
Among us
In your “midst”. But that’s up for interpretation. Like most things in the Bible, there’s layers.
“Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.””
Luke 17:20-21 ESV
Could it be said that services to others is the Kingdom? And could giving away wealth also mean putting others before yourself? And if you put others first and yourself last, then is that a perspectival shift that forgoes the ownership of ideas? And then, is that the meaning of "judge not"?
Some say in your midst means that the kingdom of God is in you. Others point to the fact that Jesus was present (in their midst) that he was a representative of the kingdom of God.
It’s pretty loaded. There’s many interpretations. You can geek out over it and have fun contemplating the chapter, but at the end of the day your interpretation is neither right or wrong.
I’m starting to think after this long thread, the whole idea of forgoing riches is due to it being an earthly desire. We need to not be attached to our personal desires. It’s okay to have nice things, but that’s not the end all be all.
Very zen like.
Yeah. Possibly all the interpretations are correct simultaneously.
I think its bigger than liberation from desire. That definitely reminds me of Buddhist teachings, though. Desire being the cause of suffering. But I'm not sure liberation from suffering is the same goal as following Christ. Maybe a nice side effect.
99% of what I possess isn't material. I can lose all of my material things and still be "me." I can lose all of my relationships and still be me. But can I lose all of my knowledge and still be me? My opinions could all change, because they'd be based on different suppositions. But then, an opinion is a judgement. If I gave away all the immaterial things I possess, what would I be? Maybe poor in spirit.
Blessed are the poor in spirit.
I tend to think of the kingdom of God as being a little bit more overt. I think we are creatures, subject to creator, and I think at some point that will be realized more clearly.
I think service, in as much as others are Gods children, is justice.
But to borrow from psychology, there is a hierarchy of needs. We have to spend some of our time in some of our places attending to the basic needs of others, food, shelter, etc., but we also have to be working towards giving them truth. It’s complicated but I think that’s why we have community. People have different skills and different abilities. We have an obligation to Steward that community in the best way possible. To meet all of these needs. Which we could never do in one lifetime. Which is why we are also compelled to steward in the next generation. And the generation after that. And there are plenty of passages talking about your grandchildren‘s grandchildren. So we don’t all have the ability to give every resource away during our own lifetime Because that may be shortsighted.
Ideas are that by which we know things. We are made to conformed the truth. It is probably a discussion an order or more past my capability but ideas as non physical , to me, are untethered to the physical world, and therefore there would not seem to be any need for ownership or concept of ownership of the idea? There is nothing precluding everyone apprehending the same idea at the same time in the same way because it does not physical, and so I don’t think ownership the way that I understand it as a necessary component of a physical world applies.?
Just to clarify I meant this note - mine - was the take of an amateur- no one else’s
We’re all amateurs. 🫡
Agreed. But I have to be careful not to lead others astray, and I’m Sometimes caught between eagerness to keep conversations going because I think it’s healthy, but also the admonition that it’s better to be silent and thought of as a fool than to open my mouth and remove all doubt
I made that choice yesterday, and been mentally flogging myself over it ever since. 😂
Ohhhhh.... Oops. Lol