2ndRateMind

I couldn't agree more with this scripture. It is (most of) the reason why I want to be a millionaire; because I think I could deploy such capital better than the currently rich currently do. Best wishes, 2RM.

I think, MrShorty, if you are happy with what you have, and what you have makes you happy, (and I am not just talking material stuff), then you have discovered one of the secrets of life. Another of those secrets, disclosed to me by a college friend long ago, is that, unless we are very rich, we either have time or money, but never both simultaneously. I cannot see that either choice is inherently evil, only that a good balance between the two is desirable. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, this is a somewhat whimsical thread. And I preface it with the confession that I want to be a millionaire just as much as anyone else. Maybe more. But, as I look back on my life, it seems to me that I have spent most of my working years hustling for money. I have had successes, here and there, and failures, here and there. But, though at times I have been outrageously poor, I have never really had to go for long without basic necessities. On the other hand, not having the capital to fund my various business projects has been a constant frustration. So, in retrospect, the following principles seem to have applied: God's providence is enough for us all to meet our needs.. Human ambition (what we want) exceeds God's providence. We can either a) accept that, and rein in our ambition, or b) pursue our ambitions, our wants, relentlessly and ruthlessly, regardless. If we choose a), as I am gradually learning to do, we discover something nice. God gives us what we want, if it is good for us, just as soon as we no longer want it. It seems to be His way of curing greed. If we choose b), as all my business training informs me we ought, we discover something nasty. We might get what we want, but only by causing damage to our own spiritual stature, the prospects of everyone else around us, and the natural fabric of the world. I wonder if anyone else has detected similar principles operating in their own lives, or whether this is just something personal between me and God? Best wishes, 2RM.

That's an interesting point of view. For my part, I have always considered politics to be 'applied religion'. I think if more people saw it that way, rather than a cynical exercise in the deployment of power, the world might be a considerably better place, and, who knows? Maybe people would be drawn closer to Christ. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, I am posting in the hope that in some small way, I will affect the democratic consensus. I neither have nor want any further power. But such as that consensus is altered, I accept full responsibility, and will, come the end of days, happily answer to God for my efforts. Best wishes, 2RM.

I am sure, if all we contributors to this thread put our minds in gear and collaborated effectively, we could arrive at a suitable strategy. For certain though, I would not want to reduce the pressure on the Kim regime, (say, by canceling joint US/South Korean military exercises) without first achieving some significant concession. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. For three generations, the Kim dynasty has been pursuing nukes in preference to economic development. Are we really supposed to believe that now they have nukes, the leadership suddenly prefers prosperity for the people....? Best wishes, 2RM.

Yeah. I kind of agree. God made the world such that there is nothing so bad a little good can't result. But we could just try and implement the good without the preceding bad. Best wishes, 2RM.

... What is it with Trump and his 'bromances' with demagogue dictators? Putin, say, or Kim Jong Un. It is certainly true that you cannot make peace with your friends, only your enemies. But when your enemies are nuclear armed, starve their people, and lock up a significant proportion of them in concentration camps for daring to criticise the regime, it seems to me to be a moral error to be too friendly with them, and a strategic error to trust them to deliver on documents they have signed up to. You can, it is said, tell the worth of a man from the company he keeps. If so, Trump's obvious attraction to bad people, and his aggressive, bullying posture toward his good allies, seems to condemn him utterly. Perhaps, amid bad company, he thinks his virtues evident, and perhaps this massages his ego. Whereas, among good company, his vices are evident, and that ego takes a significant hit. Whatever, it seems to me that America is being run along the lines of what is good for Trump's ego, according to Trump, and not for the good of the American nation, or for the good of the world. I won't be at all sorry when this aberation of popular democracy has been consigned to history, and we get a US president with the intellectual bandwidth, familiarity with geo-politics, and moral stature, to truly be the leader of the free world, not just in name, but also in competence. Best wishes, 2RM.

It's not a no. I am just trying to reorganise my time amongst various business and hobby demands. Best wishes, 2RM.

I would be inclined to agree with this. Seems to me tithes should be paid on profit, not income. However, individuals do not generally run their lives like corporations, and have other priorities than maximising return for their shareholders. They may even want to spend some or all of their excess of money on what Jeremy Bentham called utility, or 'happiness'. Quite how one accounts for individual or family profit therefore seems to me to be a somewhat vexed question, and maybe a tithe on income is the pragmatic way of avoiding such considerations. I would say though, that those with less net income/worth than $X/Z and $Y/Z as defined immediately above, their 'fair share' of God's providence, should be excused tithes altogether. Best wishes, 2RM.

That's very interesting. For those who think that (for example) a clearly defined limit on income and net worth* destroys any incentive to participate in the economy, why do they think these people do any work at all? Best wishes, 2RM. *Those of you familiar with my previous postings will note that I still advocate these (voluntarily observed) limits to be: $X/Z net income $Y/Z net worth where $X = gross world annual production, $Y = gross world wealth, Z = total world population.

Don't worry, friend. I will answer questions as and when I have nothing better to do than cast pearls, before those who think them valuable, or otherwise. Best wishes, 2RM.

Reference, please. Meanwhile, here is mine. Best wishes, 2RM..

Do you think so? All I can construe from the NT is that God prefers love to rules. Jesus never spoke of tithing, just loving one's neighbour, and doing good to them. Best wishes, 2RM.

Not much. To return to the theme of thread, gifting is charity, motivated by the love in one's heart. Tithing is for those who prefer rules to love. Rich pr poor, some prefer rules to love, because it limits their liabilities. But that was not the example of Jesus. Best wishes, 2RM.

I will readily admit that giving 10% of one's income to succour the poor is better than giving nothing at all. I just don't believe it sufficient to right the world's economic injustices. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, I'm not entirely impressed by tithes on income of 10%. Muslims do the same, called Zakat. One of the five pillars of Islam. The basic problem seems to me that it is based on what rich people have, as opposed to what poor people need. Strikes me as a somewhat loveless calculus, that satisfies the conscience of the rich, without ever addressing the fundamental disparities in the inequitable distribution of the world's wealth. Best wishes, 2RM.

I would not like it thought that I generally approve of 'free money'. Clearly, people value the money they have earned at a higher, more responsible, manner, than what they are given for nothing. Nevertheless, there are people in the world shut out from the global economy because they have nothing at all. No money to buy land, or tools, or seed, or to educate themselves such that they get to earn a decent living. I suspect those with nothing have at least as good an appreciation of the value of money as those with much. Maybe better. In such cases, charity money can save both lives and souls. Or why are we Christian, at all? Because we want to save ourselves, or because we want to save others? Best wishes, 2RM.

Of course it's a dream. I cannot see, for example, Putin, allegedly the richest man in the world, donating any of his wealth toward the common good. But this seems true to me, that if enough people dream the same dream, we can change the political climate. And if enough political climates change, we can change the world. Best wishes, 2RM

Actually, not. My 'God', is what is absolutely right, and good, and just, and fair, and kind, and honest, and noble, and brave. Because it is my belief that God exemplifies all these attributes, and more absolutes beside. And I cannot see that, thus described, any such conception of God would be happy with the current economic state of the world, such that 1% of people control as much wealth as the remaining 99% put together, and many of our poorer brethren die because they cannot afford adequate food and clean, fresh water. All it would take to achieve the righting of that wrong, it seems to me, is some sacrifice, some money, some charity, some love. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. I don't 'idolise' currency. I just have a healthy respect for what it can do, in saving lives. That seems to me to be a charitable purpose, but if you have a better position, by all means expound. Best wishes, 2RM.

Indeed not. That's your own affair, between you and God, come Judgment Day. Best wishes, 2RM.

It's quite simple, really. Some have more currency than they need, maybe even more currency than they could ever spend, whether they deserve that or not. And some have less currency than they need, and will die as the result, whether they deserve that or not. One does not need moral philosophy to inform one that this is fundamentally wrong, and a (voluntary) readjustment of the world's wealth distribution would be 'a good thing'. Best wishes, 2RM.

Of course it is. Indeed I do. The ancient Greeks may be pertinent here. They had 7 types of love, of which Agape, soul love, general love irrespective of just desert, may the most relevant. This is the type of love I would most like to see the societies of the world endorse, and encourage. But, I revert to my previous point: charity is a sacrifice. No love, no sacrifice, no charity. Best wishes, 2RM.