The Next World Order and Social Justice


2ndRateMind
 Share

Recommended Posts

Like this post
There is, it seems to me, amongst both Christians and non-Christians alike, an extant idea that one can have it all in this life, and the next also. 

But Jesus said:* 

 
Quote:

But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first. 


So, in the event that there actually is a next life, I wonder what your take on this verse might be? Will those closest to God be the rich, powerful, predominantly white, predominantly male, predominantly (allegedly) christian hegemony of this world? Or, can we expect that the poor, and the people of colour, and the women, and those of no or any religion, will eventually receive the justice they are denied here? And that they who suffer, will be compensated, and that they who do not, and carelessly ignore the plight of the very many who do, because they are not 'people like us', will not be among 'the first', hereafter? 

Best wishes, 2RM 

*Matthew 19:30 KJV
Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:
Like this post
There is, it seems to me, amongst both Christians and non-Christians alike, an extant idea that one can have it all in this life, and the next also. 

But Jesus said:* 

 
Quote:

But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first. 


So, in the event that there actually is a next life, I wonder what your take on this verse might be? Will those closest to God be the rich, powerful, predominantly white, predominantly male, predominantly (allegedly) christian hegemony of this world? Or, can we expect that the poor, and the people of colour, and the women, and those of no or any religion, will eventually receive the justice they are denied here? And that they who suffer, will be compensated, and that they who do not, and carelessly ignore the plight of the very many who do, because they are not 'people like us', will not be among 'the first', hereafter? 

Best wishes, 2RM 

*Matthew 19:30 KJV

Your entire post is based on the assumption that the righteous will have something to do with wealth, color, and social standing.

Here is what I think. This verse has everything to do with our decision to choose God over man.

”First”: people who put all their time and wealth into raising their personal and social standing.

”Last”: Thise who choose God first in all things even to the sacrifice to worldly blessings.

Someone’s color, wealth, and social standing have nothing to do with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Your entire post is based on the assumption that the righteous will have something to do with wealth, color, and social standing.

Here is what I think. This verse has everything to do with our decision to choose God over man.

”First”: people who put all their time and wealth into raising their personal and social standing.

”Last”: Thise who choose God first in all things even to the sacrifice to worldly blessings.

Someone’s color, wealth, and social standing have nothing to do with this.

 

On the contrary, I am presuming righteousness has little or nothing to do with wealth. But power does have to do with wealth, and given the current state of the world, so does also the lack of distribution of that wealth amongst people of colour, womenfolk, the disabled, and so forth.

The notion I would like to discuss, for the sheer enjoyment of debate and my own enlightenment, is this:

So far as the social structure of heaven goes, that it has to do with character, or what some call 'spiritual stature'. The 'riches' of heaven may very well be the traits of character we value, (or pretend to), in others: honesty, courage, justice, temperance, integrity, generosity, humility, prudence, empathy, fortitude etc. They all being bound together by love, such that others would value them in us quite as much as we value them in others. 

Clearly, we all might possess such traits, and those that do are evenly (one might say; fairly) distributed around the world. In fact it might well be the case, so far as wealth goes, that the possession of such virtues in any large extent militates against their possessors ever becoming rich and powerful in worldly terms. Nevertheless, if they are virtues, and if any or all of us may possess such traits to greater or lesser degrees, it might also be that on them is the social structure of paradise founded.

As for righteousness specifically, I notice the human capacity for self-delusion, such that even the worst of us is inclined to think himself righteous, really. And excuse in ourselves thought, word and deed we would never excuse in others. So, I'm inclined to more than a little suspicion of those who proclaim their own righteousness.

But, as I said earlier, this is not meant to be read as asserted dogma, merely grounds for discussion.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts are that most likely those who the Lord went to in his mortal ministry are those who will be with him in heaven, and those types that he condemned during that period are the same types that are going to have problems.  In this, if one is rich, a powerful religious leader who follows tradition or their own morals more than him, or the powerful a little worry on their part probably would not hurt. 

Those that are blatantly wicked and in the above categories should probably be very worried.

Those who are wicked but are among the poor should probably repent.  He never gave any of those that were involved with grievous sin a free pass, but did not condemn them while in this life and basically told them to repent or to cease sinning.

Those who we tend to ignore in this life, the disabled, the sick, the poor and others who follow the Lord, these are those that appeared to be the ones that the Lord went to in his mortal ministry.  A lot of it seems to be that they were more willing to listen to him and heed what he said.  They were more willing to love him.  In addition, as he was going around teaching for 3 years it is POSSIBLE (but not necessarily correct, it is pure conjecture) that he himself did not earn much money during that time and lived more as a wanderer and teacher.  Thus, it is possible he too was among those that were poor.

It is very plausible that those who are first in this world, those at the forefront of things who are the leaders, the rich, and the powerful will be last, while those who no one knows about but are righteous will be those who are first.  We will see them and be awed by how they were truly the best and most righteous among us, and if not held down by the adversary would have truly been the leaders we were seeking to lead us.

I do not know.  It is merely my thoughts.

But we do know what he said about the rich and powerful, the way he lived his life in his mortal ministry and many of his words and works during that time period.

Many today though would think his first will be last and his last will be first at least is a reference to how the gospel went first to the Jew and than the Gentile, while today it has gone to the Gentile and will eventually go to the Jew after the Gentiles have rejected it (which seems to be being fulfilled in front of our eyes).

But I do think that many of his teachings were against the Rich and powerful among all the various groups of men and that when among those groups we should have a LOT of introspection and analyze whether we truly are following the Lord and put him first, or whether we are following more the desires of the natural man in our hearts.  It is a tough thing to do that type of introspection. 

I am not among the VERY rich and powerful of my nation, but I AM in the US where we are very blessed with riches (whether we realize it or not).  In the very least those citizens in the US among the middle class would be seen as very well off by many in other nations.  When I do it I have some fear of my own for in that light I am probably far too worldly and materialistic and have far too many treasures of men rather than treasures that the Lord values.  I should put the Lord first more than I do and focus more on his thoughts and desires than what I do.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vort my dear fellow, I thought I had let enough time elapse for our previous differences to lie fallow for good. And I have tried to be more respectful. So, I'm willing to let byegones be byegones, if you are.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.  I think we can agree that “scarcity” of material resources won’t exist in heaven.  But it’s sort of unknowable as to why this will be so.  Is it because we just don’t need *anything*—there are no goods in heaven, no food, no clothing, no mansions?  Is it because all we have to do is speak the name of whatever material good we want and it appears, like some sort of divine Star Trek replicator?  Or is it because all people have been relieved of the burdens that keep them from being self-sufficient—burdens including outright exploitation, sure; but also including things like laziness, jealousy, greed, entitlement, fear, debilitation due to unhealed trauma, counterproductive family and social cultures/traditions, etc?

2.  I don’t know that the virtues you cite are evenly distributed across cultures.  I don’t think *you* really believe they are, either.  You yourself strongly hint that here is a reverse correlation between virtue and wealth, logically implying that wealthier cultures are morally inferior and that their inhabitants will have a harder time attaining salvation.  And I would actually agree with you that some cultures past and present are just plain depraved—those that practice human sacrifice, for example.       Given that progressives so dearly want to bemoan the moral rot they say capitalism fosters in America, and given that conservatives are likely to point out that the woes of places like the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, Maoist China, Zimbabwe, et al. are largely of their own making (or the result of exploitation by totalitarian political systems that run counter to traditional American values), I think we can safely drop the lip service to the doctrine of cross-cultural moral equivalency.   Some cultures and value systems are just plain better over time at promoting the general economic welfare while eradicating the sort of abject poverty of which Jesus spoke.  

3.   On a related note:  one of the “virtues” you fail to mention as existing in heaven, is the will to move heaven and earth to avoid being a burden upon others.  Another, is the willingness to let strangers (and their stuff) alone, and not try to skim off the cream of their labors for oneself and/or one’s cronies.  

Self-sufficiency is often underrated, both as a social benefit and as a moral virtue in its own right.  Is it worse to work 60 hours a week and not help the poor, or to work 30 hours a week and not help the poor?  Is it better for me to make $80K a year and use all of it to fully provide for a wife and six kids, or for me to make $35K a year and give $10K of it away while my family consumes $30K worth of government benefits in the form of food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid, etc.?

4.  It is one thing to accumulate a great deal of material goods and then knowingly and deliberately give a substantial portion (all of it?) away. 

It is quite another to economically bump and scrape along for a lifetime bemoaning one’s “disadvantaged” state, while deliberately and repeatedly eschewing the choices and lifestyles that could have allowed one to accumulate (and then redistribute, if one wished) just as much wealth as one’s peers did—and then trying to pass off that passivity as moral virtue.  

5.  In the United States, barring the homeless (where mental health issues and/or addiction are generally factors), “the poor” enjoy better food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, freedom of travel, and health care than Pontius Pilate did.  They have access to a greater variety of goods, for less money, than at any other time in history.  Those that work do so more safely, and for fewer hours, than the most highly-paid skilled craftsmen just a generation ago did.  So when we take Jesus’ statements about “the poor”—who, precisely, do we apply that to in a society where we have all but eradicated the sort of poverty Jesus was referencing?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So far as the social structure of heaven goes, that it has to do with character, or what some call 'spiritual stature'. The 'riches' of heaven may very well be the traits of character we value, (or pretend to), in others: honesty, courage, justice, temperance, integrity, generosity, humility, prudence, empathy, fortitude etc. They all being bound together by love, such that others would value them in us quite as much as we value them in others. 

I don't understand your last sentence, but I agree with your first two.  They are bound together by love, but I'm not sure you've pegged why.  But I don't have an quick alternative to voice.

 

Quote

In fact it might well be the case, so far as wealth goes, that the possession of such virtues in any large extent militates against their possessors ever becoming rich and powerful in worldly terms. 

Here's where we start disagreeing.   Someone can accumulate wealth and power, and continue to grow in honesty, courage, justice, temperance, integrity, generosity, humility, prudence, empathy, fortitude.  Absolutely there are people who set these traits aside and grab at other traits for the purposes of gaining more wealth and power.  But these traits, and the accumulation of wealth/power, are hardly mutually exclusive.  They can exist in harmony, blessing and enhancing each other.  

I see this at my work.  In this global corporation, I've watched good people climb the ladder from being engineers, to managers, to vice presidents, to executive officers.  I say they're good people because when I was closely working with them, I saw them valuing many of the traits you mention, and I saw them openly encouraging those traits in others.  Now, separated by three levels of management and distance, when they issue this or that corporate communication on how we stand for this or that trait, I know it's not just spin and hot air, because I personally witnessed them practicing what they're preaching, even when it hurt.  They now have stock options and golden parachutes and executive-level compensation in the millions, and whereas before I went to the soup kitchen for team building with them, now they're managing programs that enable and reward individual giving and service.   The worldly secular world that rewards only success, have rewarded these people for succeeding, and they haven't had to abandon their noble traits, and in fact, continue to espouse them, and even demand them from others.

 

Quote

As for righteousness specifically, I notice the human capacity for self-delusion, such that even the worst of us is inclined to think himself righteous, really. And excuse in ourselves thought, word and deed we would never excuse in others. So, I'm inclined to more than a little suspicion of those who proclaim their own righteousness.

Agreed.  Skepticism is healthy and good.  I worked for this guy, while he was doing the things that eventually landed him in prison. 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If the rich are damned and the poor are saved, where does that leave the middle class?

We’ll just have to liquidate the middle class so that the Lord will have an easier time recognizing His own.

Its the only Christian thing to do.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the answer @Fether provided to the OP was spot on, so I’m ready to move on.  

In fact, I’d suggest that if 2RM had understood the depth and breadth of that response there would have been no follow up, since the follow up seems to be an invitation to speculate on who will be closest to God, akin to the unhealthy debate among the apostles about seating proximity to the Savior.

I choose to pass on that invitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:
Like this post
There is, it seems to me, amongst both Christians and non-Christians alike, an extant idea that one can have it all in this life, and the next also. 

But Jesus said:* 

 
Quote:

But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first. 


So, in the event that there actually is a next life, I wonder what your take on this verse might be? Will those closest to God be the rich, powerful, predominantly white, predominantly male, predominantly (allegedly) christian hegemony of this world? Or, can we expect that the poor, and the people of colour, and the women, and those of no or any religion, will eventually receive the justice they are denied here? And that they who suffer, will be compensated, and that they who do not, and carelessly ignore the plight of the very many who do, because they are not 'people like us', will not be among 'the first', hereafter? 

Best wishes, 2RM 

*Matthew 19:30 KJV

Your whole premise is totally and irredeemably flawed making any conversation pointless. 

You equate power with rich, you equate power with white, you equate power to male, you equate power to christian.  You equate no power to non-whites, no power to women, no power to those who have no religion or other religions.

In other words you have a completely delusional and flawed conception that the world is soley based upon Power and that groups that you like don't have power and groups you do like have no power. Either you have an extremely myopic view of the world or are simply pushing a propaganda native-based in a Marxists philosophical view of the world.

The Christian, Western world unlike most of the world doesn't base it's hierarchical structures on power, but on competence. While power is absolutely a part of any structure (we are stupid human beings!), the Christian world has done the best to figure out how to create structures based on competence not power.

Like women don't have power-pfftt.  Tell that to a married man. Most of consumer based decisions are based upon women purchasing products. Like non-white tribal groups don't have power in South American-pfftt. Tell that to the person who gets kicked out of their tribe or is ostracized.

The problem is in the way you view the world-it's all about POWER.  And this thought process brings about the biggest hypocrites.  If what you say is true (i.e. that is the straight, white, male) who holds ALL THE POWER!  And that the only thing this world is about is really about power.  What do you think you'd really do when you actually have the POWER?  Do you think you'd be so incredibly virtuous? No, you'd be the worst, most tyrannical masters.  When you view the world through this viewpoint, once you obtain that which you think others are keeping from you, you would use it in the EXACT SAME MANNER as which you think it is being used against you.

And b/c you view the world that way, you would create something, far, far, darker than currently exists.  Unfortunately, that is the way we are headed.  I truly mean this-if this viewpoint is representative of a significant portion of the population-really, really, really dark days are ahead.  The likes of which you can't even possibly fathom.  Those who go down this route, NEVER think they are in the wrong-they will murder, oppress, kill, destroy all for "the good".

About every 100 years or so this insanity rears its head and a few societies do something stupid like this.  The US has been fortunate we have never had a French Revolution, or a  Night of the Long Knives, or a Red October (the Civil War was mild compared to those horrific events).  I guess it's getting close to being our turn . . .(sigh).

 

Edited by boxer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We’ll just have to liquidate the middle class so that the Lord will have an easier time recognizing His own.

Its the only Christian thing to do.  

"liquidate".  Exactly.

There is a good movie about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference.  They never once used the phrase "kill", "murder", etc.  It was all put into terms like "liquidate".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the opening question and statement I honestly am not sure the correlation you are weaving together between statement and verse. Here is the statement, and the BUT you feel Jesus provided:

1) Amongst both Christians and non-Christians alike, an extant idea that one can have it all in this life, and the next also.

2) BUT, " But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first."

This verse doesn't pertain to having everything in this life, or the next. A modern application of this verse, as given by Elder Bednar, is the recent Church changes, by which he shared that these things were already happening outside of the US. He then shared this verse on how outside of the US they are becoming the first and we are becoming the last, and how the first (US, particularly Utah) is having a hard time with the change where as the last (not US) are moving forward without a hitch. Once again, the first are last, and the last are first.

There is only one state, while in the flesh, where people will "have it all" (so to speak) and have it all in the next life -- that state is Zion. In Zion there is no rich, and no poor. The rich remember by whom their profit comes by (the Lord), and the poor labor for their own, and are blessed through Christ's government (The government is a theocracy, not the republic we now have). In the Book of Mormon, those who have been given more have quite the admonishing in Mosiah 4. The poor, as to wealth, also have an admonishing from the Lord -- self-reliance. In this field though, there are "no rights" to other people's monies (as we see with those with I would call "social justice" warriors). There is only gratitude from the rich (they know by which who provided their wealth) and the poor (they know and understand they do not have any right to force or compel to live off another persons wealth).

As to the discrepancy of wealth, this is the sin of humans who have not yet understood if there is inequality their is sin. Also, from those who think they can compel or force "equality" is sin also. In order for there to be no sin, and equality, the moral agency of human must remain in tact, and it is a decision that comes from the heart and soul (honoring the first two great commandments, not inverting them).

As for righteousness specifically, I notice the human capacity for self-delusion, such that even the worst of us is inclined to think himself righteous, really. And excuse in ourselves thought, word and deed we would never excuse in others. So, I'm inclined to more than a little suspicion of those who proclaim their own righteousness.

Now, this part I find to be wholly true. There are two scriptures I find enlightening in the Book of Mormon. The one is from a son who was given the plates. The mere fact he was entrusted with the plates that should be passed down says something about this man, and yet this is what he says of himself, "But behold, I of myself am a wicked man, and I have not kept the statutes and the commandments of the Lord as I ought to have done." There was no self-delusion with Omni pertaining to his life, and there should be no doubt he was still relatively a "good man" as he was entrusted with the plates (which the wicked would destroy -- I guess some irony there).

Then when the Brother of Jared is witnessing and seeing the Lord in his spirit body he says something important also, "O Lord, and do not be angry with thy servant because of his weakness before thee; for we know that thou art holy and dwellest in the heavens, and that we are unworthy before thee; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually;" (emphasis mine).

When we as a people finally move toward Zion, not just talking about Zion -- move toward Zion, it will be the only state, the only government that will be able to bring about true equality, where truly we will have all in this life and all in the next.

Until then, we will still have minds who say, "I am wealthy because I work hard," assuming others aren't wealthy because they don't work hard (like teachers, they aren't wealthy because they don't work hard -- right??). When the greed of human, turns away, and where the envy of humans is bashed, then and only then will we begin to see what truly equality is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

As to the discrepancy of wealth, this is the sin of humans who have not yet understood if there is inequality their is sin

 

Totally false.  Inequality is part of the human condition and mortal experience. Nothing you do or I do or any thing millions of people ever do with rectify this-at least not in this lifetime.  Maybe in the millennia-i doubt it.

The reason being is that each of us has difference wants and desires.  The only way for us to be equal is basically to be exact carbon copies of each other with totally unlimited resources. Some people want a BMW some people want a Ford.  Some people want a 4000 sqft house, some people want 2000 sqft.

What does "equal" even really mean?  What we each get the same amount of "money"?  Money doesn't do anything, it's how you use it.  Some people are smarter, some people are harder working, some people don't have as many gifts for speaking as others.  It's such a flawed paradigm it can't even possibly begin to work.

You're telling me that the guy who works 100 hours a week that does twice the work of someone who works 50 hours a week-that it's a sin for him not to "equalize" his earning.  That what he really should do is give up 25 of his hours to the person who works 50 hours just so they can be "equal". That simply isn't going to work.  We aren't built that way.  What will eventually happen is the guy who works 100 hours will get beaten down and will say, it's just not worth it so I'll only work 75 hours, and then 50 hours. And no everyone is worse off.  It simply can not work.

Christ describes this exactly in the parable of the talents. It really is a parable of life.

Charity is great, sure the guy who works 100 hours, sees the guy who works 50 really needs a new jacket, or help with medical expenses, he voluntarily gives so the guy can make it through. Charity however is not ensuring things are "equal".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what all this boils down to is that @2ndRateMind thinks in terms of groups while Christianity tends to be about the state of the individual.  

In Christianity, individuals are responsible for their own conduct, sins and virtue. In leftism, one's virtue is based primarily on their group membership and intersectionality.

The attempt to interpret Scripture through the lens of group identity naturally fails.  It's like trying to push a square peg through a round hole.  

If the point here is to illustrate why 2RM feels that Heaven will likely consist of more female brown faces then male white ones due to the assumption that white men naturally tend to be more morally challenged by their own material success then... That isn't a very interesting idea for discussion although it does seem like it would make a marvelous propaganda poster. 

If I personally cared enough about the demographic makeup of Heaven and the relative "power levels" then I'd probably look for data on who actually had the wealth on a global scale, what they did with it, etc... But then I'd hit a wall, which is that, as has been said in this thread already, what matters is what's in the heart of each individual person, and that's just not something we're in a position to judge.

So what's the point?  The point is that it's already an unanswerable question wrapped in the propaganda of identity politics, presumably in an effort to push it onto a Christian audience by trying to package it into something that's supposed to be more palatable, like putting medication into a dog treat.

Identity politics is just another form of bigotry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, boxer said:

Totally false.  Inequality is part of the human condition and mortal experience. Nothing you do or I do or any thing millions of people ever do with rectify this-at least not in this lifetime.  Maybe in the millennia-i doubt it.

The reason being is that each of us has difference wants and desires.  The only way for us to be equal is basically to be exact carbon copies of each other with totally unlimited resources. Some people want a BMW some people want a Ford.  Some people want a 4000 sqft house, some people want 2000 sqft.

What does "equal" even really mean?  What we each get the same amount of "money"?  Money doesn't do anything, it's how you use it.  Some people are smarter, some people are harder working, some people don't have as many gifts for speaking as others.  It's such a flawed paradigm it can't even possibly begin to work.

You're telling me that the guy who works 100 hours a week that does twice the work of someone who works 50 hours a week-that it's a sin for him not to "equalize" his earning.  That what he really should do is give up 25 of his hours to the person who works 50 hours just so they can be "equal". That simply isn't going to work.  We aren't built that way.  What will eventually happen is the guy who works 100 hours will get beaten down and will say, it's just not worth it so I'll only work 75 hours, and then 50 hours. And no everyone is worse off.  It simply can not work.

Christ describes this exactly in the parable of the talents. It really is a parable of life.

Charity is great, sure the guy who works 100 hours, sees the guy who works 50 really needs a new jacket, or help with medical expenses, he voluntarily gives so the guy can make it through. Charity however is not ensuring things are "equal".

If you say so, I prefer to believe Christ not Boxer, Zion which has been created by humans (city of Enoch) and will one day in the future here be also organized, proves you false.

Alma 16:16 and Alma 28:13, kind of puts your words at odds.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Until then, we will still have minds who say, "I am wealthy because I work hard," assuming others aren't wealthy because they don't work hard (like teachers, they aren't wealthy because they don't work hard -- right??). When the greed of human, turns away, and where the envy of humans is bashed, then and only then will we begin to see what truly equality is.

It's not wealthy b/c I work hard-it's wealthy b/c I individually provide something that is of greater benefit than others. Teachers don't get paid much b/c a) it doesn't take a whole lot of skill/intellect to be a teacher and b) individually a single teacher does not provide a significant amount of benefit.

If you combined all the teachers and combined ALL their salaries you'd find yes, they are paid quite handsomely by society overall, but one single teacher does not have that much affect on society. One single Elon Musk affects society FAAAR greater than one single teacher and consequently he is rewarded handsomely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

If you say so, I prefer to believe Christ not Boxer, Zion which has been created by humans (city of Enoch) and will one day in the future here be also organized, proves you false.

Where does Christ say "inequality" is sin?

In fact doesn't He say "and the poor will always be with you but me ye shall not have with you"? Or am I just reading the Bible of Boxer?

And we have 0 understanding of what the City of Enoch was really like . . . oh except that it is no longer on this earth . . .my point exactly.

We don't have any idea what the millenium will actually like so speculating on it is pointless at best and at worst pollutes our heads with false ideas.

Edited by boxer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, boxer said:

It's not wealthy b/c I work hard-it's wealthy b/c I individually provide something that is of greater benefit than others. Teachers don't get paid much b/c a) it doesn't take a whole lot of skill/intellect to be a teacher and b) individually a single teacher does not provide a significant amount of benefit.

If you combined all the teachers and combined ALL their salaries you'd find yes, they are paid quite handsomely by society overall, but one single teacher does not have that much affect on society. One single Elon Musk affects society FAAAR greater than one single teacher and consequently he is rewarded handsomely.

You clearly are missing the point being made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, boxer said:

Where does Christ say "inequality" is sin?

In fact doesn't He say "and the poor will always be with you but me ye shall not have with you"? Or am I just reading the Bible of Boxer?

I edited my post, "And there was no inequality among them; the Lord did pour out his Spirit on all the face of the land to prepare the minds of the children of men, or to prepare their hearts to receive the word which should be taught among them at the time of his coming— "

"And thus we see how great the inequality of man is because of sin and transgression, and the power of the devil, which comes by the cunning plans which he hath devised to ensnare the hearts of men."

Imagine that, it is in scripture, which are the words of Christ.

 

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I edited my post, "And there was no inequality among them; the Lord did pour out his Spirit on all the face of the land to prepare the minds of the children of men, or to prepare their hearts to receive the word which should be taught among them at the time of his coming— "

"And thus we see how great the inequality of man is because of sin and transgression, and the power of the devil, which comes by the cunning plans which he hath devised to ensnare the hearts of men."

Imagine that, it is in scripture, which are the words of Christ.

 

Does it DEFINE "inequality"?  Where does it actually define what it means?

You are simply using your definition of inequality and overlaying it on top of the scripture. What did it actually look like?  I guess b/c their was no inequality they all wore the exact same brand of Nike shoes? They all wore the exact same color of shirt?  If they didn't, then it is clearly "inequal".  Or maybe, they all had shoes-some had blue shoes and some red shoes.  Maybe they all had houses, some with a plot of land, some with no plot of land.

What exactly does it mean to be "inequal". If you go by a meta-metric, right now in the US we are all pretty dang equal.  Most people have access to running water, clothes, toilets, etc.  If one is going by basic needs we are all pretty much "equal".  This is what happens when people don't actually THINK about what the scripture says or what it means and just assume.

Christ said and the poor will always be with you?  Imagine that . .the Word's of Christ . .. oh I guess you don't believe Him . . .hmm funny.

Edited by boxer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, boxer said:

Does it DEFINE "inequality"?  Where does it actually define what it means?

You are simply using your definition of inequality and overlaying it on top of the scripture.

Christ said and the poor will always be with you?  Imagine that . .the Word's of Christ . .. oh I guess you don't believe Him . . .hmm funny.

The "poor" are always with us, even in Zion (the poor in spirit). Zion, where there are no rich and no poor. I mean, I am not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding a simple subject.

Take the context of what Alma is addressing in those chapters, and each chapter where "inequality" is mentioned. It doesn't take a genius to see what is being discussed when inequality is mentioned.

Doesn't need to define it, it is in context of the scripture -- imagine that - context! Yep, I believe Christ, clearly, you have a misunderstanding and now seek to excuse your misunderstanding by saying, "Does it DEFINE 'inequality'"? OK, keep telling yourself that so you can feel better about yourself.

I mean I specifically showed you where Christ said, "inequality of man is because of sin and transgression," inequality is sin. But you still want to argue. OK, have fun with that.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  I think we can agree that “scarcity” of material resources won’t exist in heaven.  But it’s sort of unknowable as to why this will be so.  Is it because we just don’t need *anything*—there are no goods in heaven, no food, no clothing, no mansions?  Is it because all we have to do is speak the name of whatever material good we want and it appears, like some sort of divine Star Trek replicator?  Or is it because all people have been relieved of the burdens that keep them from being self-sufficient—burdens including outright exploitation, sure; but also including things like laziness, jealousy, greed, entitlement, fear, debilitation due to unhealed trauma, counterproductive family and social cultures/traditions, etc?

2.  I don’t know that the virtues you cite are evenly distributed across cultures.  I don’t think *you* really believe they are, either.  You yourself strongly hint that here is a reverse correlation between virtue and wealth, logically implying that wealthier cultures are morally inferior and that their inhabitants will have a harder time attaining salvation.  And I would actually agree with you that some cultures past and present are just plain depraved—those that practice human sacrifice, for example.       Given that progressives so dearly want to bemoan the moral rot they say capitalism fosters in America, and given that conservatives are likely to point out that the woes of places like the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, Maoist China, Zimbabwe, et al. are largely of their own making (or the result of exploitation by totalitarian political systems that run counter to traditional American values), I think we can safely drop the lip service to the doctrine of cross-cultural moral equivalency.   Some cultures and value systems are just plain better over time at promoting the general economic welfare while eradicating the sort of abject poverty of which Jesus spoke.  

3.   On a related note:  one of the “virtues” you fail to mention as existing in heaven, is the will to move heaven and earth to avoid being a burden upon others.  Another, is the willingness to let strangers (and their stuff) alone, and not try to skim off the cream of their labors for oneself and/or one’s cronies.  

Self-sufficiency is often underrated, both as a social benefit and as a moral virtue in its own right.  Is it worse to work 60 hours a week and not help the poor, or to work 30 hours a week and not help the poor?  Is it better for me to make $80K a year and use all of it to fully provide for a wife and six kids, or for me to make $35K a year and give $10K of it away while my family consumes $30K worth of government benefits in the form of food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid, etc.?

4.  It is one thing to accumulate a great deal of material goods and then knowingly and deliberately give a substantial portion (all of it?) away. 

It is quite another to economically bump and scrape along for a lifetime bemoaning one’s “disadvantaged” state, while deliberately and repeatedly eschewing the choices and lifestyles that could have allowed one to accumulate (and then redistribute, if one wished) just as much wealth as one’s peers did—and then trying to pass off that passivity as moral virtue.  

5.  In the United States, barring the homeless (where mental health issues and/or addiction are generally factors), “the poor” enjoy better food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, freedom of travel, and health care than Pontius Pilate did.  They have access to a greater variety of goods, for less money, than at any other time in history.  Those that work do so more safely, and for fewer hours, than the most highly-paid skilled craftsmen just a generation ago did.  So when we take Jesus’ statements about “the poor”—who, precisely, do we apply that to in a society where we have all but eradicated the sort of poverty Jesus was referencing?

So, to take your points one by one, as the quality of your reply duly deserves:

1: I am assuming that the 'afterlife' will be the presence of God, absolute and infinite goodness, which will be both the vindication of virtue, and the punishment of vice. I am assuming, above all, that it will not be a material state, but a spiritual one, just as God is not material, but pure spirit.

2: I am quite happy to suppose that, per million head of population, there are just as many virtuous North Americans, Europeans, etc, as virtuous Africans, Chinese, Indians, Latin Americans, etc. In fact, I regard this as an empirical hypothesis to be disproven, if one can arrive at a reasonably objective method of measuring virtue. If it is disproven, my argument would need modification to retain any credibility. But I'm content to leave that work to you and any others who might find the topic of interest.

3: I prefer the term 'self-reliance' to 'self-sufficiency'. It does not imply the same lonely and solely self-regarding state of mind. And yes, I would regard self-reliance as a virtue, also, provided we note that it depends on one's circumstances being such that it is a realistic prospect.

4: I never said it was.

5: There are plenty of people, even in the US, let alone world-wide, who are absolutely poor and eke out meagre, stunted lives on ridiculously small annual incomes. 1.3 billion of them on earth, as I recall the figure, on less than $2 per day.

I remember, a couple of years ago, when the snow in New York was particularly bad and the temperatures well below zero centigrade, seeing on the news a brief item about a (black) homeless man whose protection from the weather was a plastic sheet and the warm air expelled by a vent to the subway system. This, in the richest nation on Earth.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share