[louison11]

Early Christian teachings were deeply anti-wealth — but context matters. Back then, wealth mostly came from land grabs, tax farming, and debt slavery. The rich were rich because the poor were poor. Christianity started as a movement of the oppressed under empire, and its ethic of radical sharing was a way to survive a brutal, zero-sum system.

Fast-forward to today: most people aren’t living under that kind of direct economic violence. In fact, doing what early Christians did — selling everything and giving it away — would often create more suffering. Try paying for healthcare or your kid’s college without savings. In a modern context, investing, and wealth-building can be acts of love and protection — not greed. I don't think it'd make me a better man and father to just subject my entire family to poverty.

So maybe the point isn’t “money = evil,” but “systems that enrich some by grinding down others = evil.” The ethical challenge is still valid — just adapted for a world where your 401(k) isn’t funded by enslaving your neighbor.

It's not that we should interpret the Bible differently and make it say whatever we want; but that like any story, we need to look at the context within which it took place.

[fallingfrog]

"Back then, wealth mostly came from land grabs, tax farming, and debt slavery. The rich were rich because the poor were poor."

With all due respect my friend. That is 100% how it still works right now. That is how it has always worked. The reason you think otherwise is because you are not poor.

[louison11]

If it's always been this way, can you explain why most people today live in far greater conditions than 2000 years ago, or even 100 years ago? Or the dramatically declining global extreme poverty rate during that same period? If being rich always meant you took it from the poor, then you'd never have any improvement for anyone that does not result in worsening for someone else, mathematically.

It seems to me economic growth is the proof that money is not a zero-sum game, and that one can create value, that creates jobs, opportunities and a betterment in life across the board. A tide that lifts all boats.

You can validate that by looking at world economies. The countries with no innovation/entrepreneurship aren't better off for having less people building wealth: everybody is just poorer. In contrast, more capitalist wealth-oriented economies tend to create more opportunities.

[cherryteastain]

> Try paying for healthcare or your kid’s college without savings. In a modern context, investing, and wealth-building can be acts of love and protection — not greed.

Only because the present (American) system is set up as such.

[louison11]

Exactly. But we're talking about the present, aren't we? And with all its flaws, the present isn't all that bad. Capitalism has been a powerful instrument for economic growth and financial liberation. Declining global poverty rates, more opportunities, etc.

[testing22321]

> Try paying for healthcare or your kid’s college without savings

For hundreds of millions of people they are a basic human right and completely free.

Never had a job? Doesn’t matter, still free.

[rolandog]

Are you going to back those wild claims with some facts, links or how-to's? I would very much like to go study a second degree, a Master's, or a PhD but I fear I can't take several years off work to just study (who'll pay for living expenses?).

[grafmax]

> selling everything and giving it away — would often create more suffering

This is turning our eye to our own choices of wealth rather than looking to the wealthiest in our society and asking ourselves if such hoarding of wealth is just, while we are surrounded by things like homeless encampments. Surely such hoarding is “grinding others down.”