Comment by api | Hacker News Reader

Comment by api | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

He accumulates vast amounts of money and AFAIK isn't very into charity or helping the poor, which directly contradicts Christian teaching. By the most direct interpretation of the Christian gospels he should be giving most of it away, but even a more moderate interpretation says he should be doing a whole lot more philanthropy.

He openly supports and funds elitist ideologies like neoreaction that propose that all human life is not of equal moral value and that some are "just better" than others and more or less that might makes right, which is very contrary to Christian teaching.

Those are two that come to mind instantly. There's many more.

He's pretty clearly a political reactionary who believes in religion as a tool to organize a society. That's a secular belief. Belief in religion as a political tool does not require belief in God. (And on the flip side it's entirely possible to believe in God but not to like or trust religion, which is a secular human institution.)

Yes, he's Lutheran, and yet he practices the theology of glory. He has lost the plot, very likely deliberately as you suggest.

Not sure where your getting that Christians can't be wealthy or accumulate wealth. Theres nothing is Christen teachings that says you must give away your wealth. Historically and currently there are many Christians that have vast amounts of wealth.

I'm not sure about the elitist funding or the human grading. Please give a source on this along with the exact biblical text that contradicts his actions.

And again I say unto you, 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.

Matthew 19:24

Sounds like that can be interpreted in many different ways. Isn't this why we are here?

Yes, rich people just need to create tiny camels that can easily go through the eye of a needle, and rich people are suddenly good people.

No seriously, where's the leeway in interpretation? I truly don't see it.

Then I guess you've never seen religion being weaponized or being used as excuss to be non-inclusive? Or is that a truly wrong interpretation?

You explicitly asked for the exact biblical text, but when provided with it, you are now claiming it is "weaponizing religion to be non-inclusive."

Isn't the exact opposite problem much more prevalent here? Namely, that extreme wealth simply buys access and exceptions to these ethical teachings.

Not at all. Let me quote the OP from above,

>> No seriously, where's the leeway in interpretation? I truly don't see it.

The point is I can grab any verse and sell it for whatever my narrative is. The fact is the OP wants it interpreted the way they read it. I don't see any connection forcing someone to dispose of wealth to be part of a religion.

Extreme wealth has nothing to do beliefs or your religion. What the theme here is that to be a devote X you need to follow every rule and belief to claim yourself an X. Thats nonsense and anyone who did would carry the label of religious fanatic. 99 percent of all religious people do not follow or believe 100 percent of whatever their following.

So your point is that scripture is irrelevant, but you are asking for scripture to defend a statement. Also, there have been at least 4 other verses mentioned in this thread.

Really, what has happened here is that you have failed to give an alternative interpretation. Your entire argument stands on your ability to do so.

I already went over the relevance to extreme wealth in another comment, I encourage you to address it there.

Also in Mark 10:17 and Luke 18:18.

I agree that "you must give away all your wealth" is not a command binding on all Christians (based on other passages in the New Testament), but generosity is commanded pretty often IIRC: Matt. 6:19–21 and 6:24, 1 Tim. 6:17–19, James 2:15–16, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com