RE: Re: All Liberals Love Miss Rand

The majority of my response to this was already covered in my post from this afternoon entitled Piercing the Veil. However, to a few specific points:

I find it ironic that you use the mechanism of picking and choosing a few convenient extracts from scripture to make an accusation against those who use a few convenient extracts from scripture to make a political point or substantiate a political claim. I've asked both you and Behethland several times to provide examples of this by anyone on this board. Neither of you have seen fit to provide any examples so I can only assume your rhetoric is simply that. Once again, being well schooled in the mechanics and vocabulary of liberalism, random generalizations using specialized terms designed to preempt debate and elicit emotional responses seem to be second nature for you.

With regard to the passage in Matthew to which you referred, I'm assuming you mean the answer in chapter 18 to the disciples' question on who is the greatest in Heaven. I'm not sure how you manage to take that answer and convert it to an anti-capitalism pronouncement. The lesson offered by Christ in that passage relates to innocence and the rejection of evil. The full context, which is what liberals so often choose to ignore in scriptural lessons is:

At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

So there is a complex lesson here. On the one hand, Jesus takes the opportunity to teach on the subject of innocence as a virtue and on the other, a stern warning about the dim view God takes toward those who would harm a child, either in spirit or in body. Furthermore he provides an even stronger warning on the rejection of evil. Of course this passage has nothing whatsoever to do with a capitalist defending himself against the greedy looters who seek to make him ashamed of his accomplishments. And in no way could this passage or lesson be even remotely construed as anti-capitalist. Your thinly-stretched definition of pride doesn't even remotely apply.

But on to your second invocation, in Mark. Once again, you neglected to include context. The passage to which you refer is the story of the rich young man who comes to Jesus and asks what he must do to attain the Kingdom of Heaven. This is a very interesting passage for you to have chosen, because it gets right to the matter of whether or not Jesus expects us all to become ascetics. The important part of the passage is this:

And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

And there it is. Outright, Jesus tells us that those who "trust in riches" will find it difficult to enter into the kingdom of God. It is not the riches themselves. It is not the act of becoming rich unless it is done to the detriment of others. It is those who worship money as their god who will be left out of eternal life. But to continue:

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?

Indeed, who then can be saved? In Strother's world, no one. The only road to salvation apparently lies in starvation. But Jesus has a different idea:

And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible. Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Jesus is saying that whatever one gives up in his service and in the service of God will be repaid a hundredfold in the way of eternal life. But the important point here is that the sacrifice that will be repaid isn't just money or worldly possessions, it is attachment to all that is worldly. Jesus repeatedly talks of giving up one's life in order to save it. This is in regard to faith, not in regard to worldly asceticism. As long as it is just as easy for us to give up what we have accumulated, then the act of accumulation has no bearing. If we can give up our attachment to the material world, then the acquisition of a few simple possessions, all the way up to the attainment of fabulous wealth is equally unimportant. And, in fact, we find Jesus emphatically did not require everyone to sell all and follow him. Just a few chapters back, Jesus disallows Legion, from whom he has just cast a host of evil spirits, to take up the cross and follow him:

Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee.

Is Jesus saying that you must never achieve wealth? No. Is he saying that we must never be proud of our accomplishments? No. Is he saying that it is right for any man to force another man to give up his life, his accomplishments, or his possessions for the sake of another? Absolutely not. What he says, here as in everywhere else, is that the content of a person's heart is the important factor. And here, as in other passages, he clearly does not expect us to give up our responsibilities to our families and other loved ones to become hermits in the wilderness.

The fundamental mistake made by liberals who would misuse scripture is exemplified in the frequent misquoting of a passage in the first epistle of Timothy. You will hear them say (as Ayn Rand misquoted as well) that "Money is the root of all evil." In fact the actual passage says:

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Money can't be evil, it is an inanimate object. And the acquisition of wealth through effort and fair exchange isn't evil. Christ talked in parable after parable of benevolent wealth. Greed and lust for the proceeds of money are the evil. Or put another way, it is what one does with money that can be evil or good. And in the end, the rich man who will give everything away, who is more attached to his soul and to his love of Christ than to his money, will have no harder time finding himself cradled in the bosom of Abraham than did Lazarus the beggar.