Why is this the 🐑🐑’s Definition of Greed??
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (18)
sorted by:
And if you are a Christian you can’t be rich, right?
For those who have seen the light and follow the good path.
" For unto every man that hath, it shall be given, and he shall have abundance, and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away. -Matthew 25:29 -- 1599 Geneva
out of contexts isn't it? Hath what? Back in the day that was done because ever christian was expected to know where that is from, today, so very few read the bible you have to say the whole point. or is out of context.
Nope , I am not my brothers keeper. They will chose wisely or Not. Natural Selection is still natural. I can only try to enlighten.
well then, get fucked. You are not helping
Maybe not helping you , but may not be possible/needed either.
"A righteous man falling down before the wicked, is like a troubled well and a corrupt spring." ---proverbs 25:25 --1599 Geneva
i don't think being unclear helps anyone.
"well then, get fucked. You are not helping".....because thinking is hard.
Which of the Prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them, which showed before of the coming of that Just, of whom ye are now the betrayers and murderers, --- Acts7:52
it seems there was opposition to having "superfluous wealth", or wealth beyond one's needs; naturally the traditional breadwinner of a family might need some money to provide for the family, or to provide for setbacks. Yet generally the Gospel I think really only talks about "food and clothing" as being necessities, and if people have these that beyond that they might consider being generous with the "superfluous wealth" they have.
A discussion: "The Sin of Having Superfluous Wealth" https://scored.co/c/Christianity/p/13zgSTG4QA/the-sin-of-having-superfluous-we/c
It was never about how much money someone had. It was about how much the money had you
Read the book 1984 and you will fully understand.
idk what this meme is saying exactly but the right needs to get on the ball with creating a "worker's movement" like the "antiwork" movement of the left;
particularly our focus is more on how regulations and taxes strangle the ability for people to earn "family wages" (enough to provide for a family) or "living wages" (enough to provide for a living)
other potentially legal methods have been used to extract more and more wealth from workers... for example the payment of profits at businesses to shareholders, rather than to distribute such profits to the workers (who have produced the "actual value" of whatever product is being made to sell)
Medievals had the idea of a "just price", which was different from but perhaps related to the idea of the "labor theory of value" which is often rejected today. While the prevailing "subjective theory of value" has some obvious merit, it has less obvious problems of enabling labor value to be thought to be "completely subjective" to the point of employers being willing to pay "exploitative" or insufficient wages in proportion to the amount of productivity provided to the worker.
Many people only have their labor to sell and thus are in a precariously dependent position; hence it would be wise for society to prioritize the value of such labor and structure work and payment of workers in ways that are motivating and sufficient for living a decent life.
There is probably no shortage of problems to be remedied and topics to discuss related to these issues
In the Olden days, you were given a big chunk of money on your Wedding day. You used that as a down payment and or to start a business. Then you slowly paid it forward by going to Weddings and gifting the Newly Weds. Maybe young people should be given an interest free loan towards buying a house or funding a new business. Then they pay it back over the next 25 years.
Only young invaders currently
Not the same, they don't have to pay it back.
They get twenty grand in Cali (that they don't pay back)..but the mortgage is interest free..which they do