Still hard to grasp why most communist parties have deliberately oppressed christianity and hardline christians in the US are as far from communist as you can get. I'm pretty confident in my guess that the persecution of christians by communist parties is the cause of christians moving themselves as far away from it as possible but could it be the opposite?

This is surprising because Jesus would easily be considered a communist in today's world and conservatives are about as far from Jesus' teachings as you could possibly be.

Quote :

""It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.""

Quote :

""If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Quote :

""blessed are the meek" "

Quote :

""woe unto ye who are rich" "

Quote :

""forgive our debts, as we forgive our debtors" "

Quote :

"Give us this day our daily bread""

Quote :

" "miracle of the loaves and fish""

Quote :

""ask and it shall be given to you. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and the door shall be opened""

jesus also did things like throw businessmen out of the temple and call them thieves, give free healthcare to the poor and continue to reinforce the idea of community.

2/28/2010 2:01:31 PM

another quality thread from mambagrl

On a serious note, I wrote a paper about prominent communists in the antiapartheid movement in South Africa. To make a long story short, I gained a lot of respect for the communists who were leaders on the ANC. On the other hand, I wasn't very impressed by the US response (who still label Nelson Mandela as a terrorist to my knowledge).

2/28/2010 2:11:34 PM

The “Eye of the Needle” may have been a reference to the name of a particular mountain pass.

2/28/2010 2:15:12 PM

Quote :

"give free healthcare to the poor"

That was a lot easier for Jesus, what with the miracles and everything. In fact, lack of miracles and miracle workers is one of the biggest reasons that the US hasn't created a Jesus-style healthcare program.

The bible was written during a time of little social justice. Its no surprise that the bible played off of that to appeal to the masses, who were largely meek and poor.

2/28/2010 2:21:22 PM

Yes, I'm sure what Jesus meant is that it is "moderately difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

What a profound saying.

Quote :

"In fact, lack of miracles and miracle workers is one of the biggest reasons that the US hasn't created a Jesus-style healthcare program."

LOL

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 2:26 PM. Reason : gcgf]

2/28/2010 2:23:27 PM

Governments have often worked with Christianity (and other religions) to maintain their control over the people. The government can point to the bible and say, "See? This says some of your money belongs to the government, so hand it over, or you hate Jesus!" Obviously, the bible is a crock of shit anyway, but if you're going to call yourself a Christian, Christ is purported to have said "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's," which gives credence to the idea that some of your money belongs to the government.

2/28/2010 3:09:48 PM

Quote :

"Still hard to grasp why most communist parties have deliberately oppressed christianity"

uhhh power?

The state is God, why let this pesky Jesus fellow direct your attention away from service of the Party in order to concentrate on the hereafter?

Quote :

"The bible was written during a time of little social justice."

There is a nasty habit of reading the Bible out of all historical context.

Quote :

"miracle of the loaves and fish"

Ahh yes, here we find the heart of Marx's original doctrine.

2/28/2010 3:11:27 PM

^ historical context is irrelevant if it is the unerring word of God.

2/28/2010 3:17:01 PM

ahhh, how easily we forget. I shall not make such a heretical statement again.

2/28/2010 3:19:29 PM

I asked a Christian, they said it was exceedingly difficult for anyone to get into heaven. What they interpret that saying to mean is that a rich man will not be shown favoritism, as it will be just as hard for them to get into heaven as it is for everyone else.

2/28/2010 3:51:50 PM

i can't follow mambagirls first point, but jesus was basically a socialist except he never said anything about using government to redistribute wealth. instead, he told people to do it on their own.

^^^ what historical context are you talking about? the eye of the needle thing? it doesn't change the point of the story, it was an exceedingly narrow pass and to get through it you had to leave everything behind.



[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2010 3:52:44 PM

I wouldn't say that encouraging private generosity falls under socialism.

2/28/2010 3:54:39 PM

i mean neither would i under any definition that i know of, except that his teachings placed it among the most important things so it was pretty central to his message. i can't think of a modern equivalent, hence my sentence

2/28/2010 3:56:05 PM

Absolutely not. One needs to define their terms. What Jesus favored was what political scientists call voluntary socialism, similar to the Kabuts or a family unit where a couple voluntary chooses to marry contractually a share finances. What people mean in today's vernacular as "socialism" is what political scientists call involuntary socialism where men with guns show up and make you share finances.

Jesus wanted us to treat strangers as family. But in a family, men with guns enforcing their whim on the rest of the family is a rare feature.

2/28/2010 4:00:56 PM

Quote :

"I asked a Christian, they said it was exceedingly difficult for anyone to get into heaven. What they interpret that saying to mean is that a rich man will not be shown favoritism, as it will be just as hard for them to get into heaven as it is for everyone else."

Let me go ahead and call it. BULL FUCKING SHIT

Its EASIER for a camel (very large animal) to pass through the eye of a needle (smallest practicle opening one can think of) AKA its pretty much IMPOSSIBLE. which is why the quote was followed up with people asking jesus "well what should we do to get into heaven?" and he said GO GIVE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE TO THE POOR, THEN COME FOLLOW ME.

Don't try and misinterpret this crystal clear passage from crystal just to justify your COMPLETE disagreement with a fundamental teaching of christianity. Just stop calling yourselves christians.

Quote :

"Absolutely not. One needs to define their terms. What Jesus favored was what political scientists call voluntary socialism, similar to the Kabuts or a family unit where a couple voluntary chooses to marry contractually a share finances. What people mean in today's vernacular as "socialism" is what political scientists call involuntary socialism where men with guns show up and make you share finances. Jesus wanted us to treat strangers as family. But in a family, men with guns enforcing their whim on the rest of the family is a rare feature."

Jesus stormed the temple and threw out businessmen. In this case, it was sending the message of DON'T BE A HYPOCRIT. EITHER CALL YOURSELF A CHRISTIAN AND HELP OR LEAVE.

the whole volunteer involuntary argument is flawed. Its much easier for the government to redistribute wealth with an income tax than to have people donate. If you continue to live in teh coutnry then you are VOLUNTEERING.

Plus, its already a given that people who are "christian" won't have a problem with progressive taxation, since they aren't allowed to be rich anyhow....o wait.

and atheists happen to be a ok with it so theres noeveryones already volunteerd

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 4:13 PM. Reason : how]

2/28/2010 4:11:36 PM

Quote :

"a camel (very large animal)"

Quote :

"practicle"

Quote :

"misinterpret this crystal clear passage from crystal"

Quote :

"HYPOCRIT"

Quote :

"teh coutnry"

Quote :

"I AM a teacher"

2/28/2010 4:14:48 PM

as emotion goes up

spelling goes down




[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 4:19 PM. Reason : crystal clear passage from SCRIPTURE. but this is what someone who lost starts doing, arguing gram]

2/28/2010 4:18:56 PM

Wow, calm down there. Why are you getting so rattled over such an inane subject?

And no, agreement to government policy cannot be morally determined by requiring those affected to move to another country. Such a moral system is absurd, it would mean it was morally justified for the Cavalry to hunt down and kill native Americans back in the 19th century because, clearly, the indians volunteered to sacrifice their lives by not opting-out of the policy by moving to Canada. Or that blacks agreed to their future enslavement by not fleeing the coasts of Africa.

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 4:23 PM. Reason : sp]

2/28/2010 4:22:26 PM

because making someone help the poor is just as bad as slavary and genocide.

solid logic.

2/28/2010 4:24:14 PM

Not that this thread merits a well thought out response but the early followers of Jesus were very subversive WRT the Roman government. I mean the Pharisees had him crucified by Roman soldiers under Roman law for declaring himself a king.

The entire basis for Christianity was a faith of the heart, not a religion of laws. Compulsory redistribution of wealth by the state is anathema to the concept of freely giving of the fruits of the Spirit.


So, in a sense, yes a strictly organized anarcho-communist society would be the ultimate expression of Christian love but none of the state-imposed devices being advocated here are in keeping with the spirit of Agape.

2/28/2010 4:29:51 PM

We are talking principles. Either it is moral to force your wishes upon others, or it is not.

Quote :

"he said GO GIVE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE TO THE POOR, THEN COME FOLLOW ME"

That does not sound very Christian... If you give everything you have to the poor, then they are no longer poor, and therefore will no longer get into heaven, by your logic. It would seem to me, by your logic, the surest way to help the most people is to spend your time destroying wealth (setting fire to fields, burning down cities, killing livestock, etc). Only then can everyone be poor and have an easy time getting into heaven.

That said, you have yet to show where he says getting into heaven is easy for a poor person to do.

Quote :

"Jesus stormed the temple and threw out businessmen."

Also, he did no such thing. He turned over some tables. He did not arrest anyone, he did not even harm anyone. He was making a political statement, not enforcing a law.

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 4:33 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/28/2010 4:30:58 PM

^^sorry, many of the early christians lived in communal groups. look it up.

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 4:31 PM. Reason : two]

^you obviously wouldn't give it all to one person. thats why you sell it and spread it around.

the rest you said is false. global gdp per capita is around 9k.

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 4:33 PM. Reason : 9k per year is hardly rich]

2/28/2010 4:31:09 PM

mambagrl, I would love to hear you explain the prima facia contradiction of the parable of the talents. in your words how does that play into your point?

2/28/2010 4:33:15 PM

Exactly, they lived in voluntary communal groups. There were no members of the group that were there involuntarily. They were free to leave as their conscience allowed. There was no enforcer with a weapon guarding the door to keep members of the commune from leaving. Hence, it was pure voluntary socialism.

Quote :

"9k per year is hardly rich"

By the standards known to Jesus, 9k a year is impossibly rich. An American with 9k annual income can live a far better life today than the wealthiest man Jesus ever met.

2/28/2010 4:39:56 PM

Its all relative. The point is that rich people are rich at the cost of poor people and are therefore exploiting them by putting strain on the system. If everyone was 9k there would be no rich and no poor because nobody would be putting strain on the system. Currently people are given the option of slavery or starvation because the rich own the means to work and put a chokehold on it by considering the act of offering others the ability to work/be slaves as their work when they aren't producing anything. Its pretty ugly.

2/28/2010 4:44:44 PM

I'm just thinking off the cuff here, but if I was to try to understand the historicity of communism's problem with chrisitianity (outside of... just reading Marx) I would probably investigate the interaction of the french revolution with christianity and why the revolutionaries then and all revolutionaries seem to have a problem with the church and the religion as a whole.

2/28/2010 4:57:55 PM

Even if you had your way and everyone made exactly 9k per year you would still have people who spent their money wisely and people who blew their money on frivolous crap.

Then the situation would be just like it is now, except your definition of rich would be people living comfortably with a bit of money saved away and your definition of poor would be people who blew it. No matter how close income is a socioeconomic ladder will still exist and people like you will always bitch about it.

2/28/2010 4:59:05 PM

No things could work like an all inclusive resort where everyone pays a certain amount and gets a certain allowance. If you spend your allowance, you still have all the neccessities built in (all inclusive) Luxeries would be purchased with the allowances or they could be saved. You couldn't take money to make money so saving would be saving. Its not like soemone could save their money and start buying all the forks then one day say AHA, YOU MUST TRADE ME YOUR ALLOWANCE FOR A FORK.

2/28/2010 5:02:50 PM

I'm not reading all this, but I will make this point...

it's kind of funny that in communist countries they kind of treat communism like

a religion

I mean they all get together and go over the communist teachings and study review the ideas that come from the leadership

I've heard it's a lot like church.

2/28/2010 5:06:11 PM

please respond to my post, its more relevant now

2/28/2010 5:07:52 PM

It is pretty ugly only because you fail to comprehend what you are seeing. Wealth is a product of human activity, it is not manna from heaven. To have wealth requires something, such as a farm, a factory, or a company. These things are no accident, they took effort to create, and they did not exist before they were created. People get rich by creating these things that produce wealth. They did not take the wealth from anyone, much less the poor. We are all born worse than poor, what is unusual in a million years of human history is the presence of wealth, not poverty.

Now, you are obviously right, all this wealth creation does not produce enough knock-off effects. Me getting rich does not make others also rich. But it does improve their situation. Like you said, it is all relative, 9k today is a great life compared to when Jesus was alive. Back then, the average annual income was below subsistence: even the able bodied working hard every day suffered from hunger and were only one injury away from starvation. So, to say rich people are rich at the cost of poor people is false, the rich are rich because wealth was created, the poor are, at worse, as we found them.

2/28/2010 5:08:22 PM

Quote :

"The entire basis for Christianity was a faith of the heart, not a religion of laws. Compulsory redistribution of wealth by the state is anathema to the concept of freely giving of the fruits of the Spirit. "

this wasn't the "basis" for Christianity until fairly recently.

Christianity was definitely about rules and laws (the whole pilgrims thing), from since it was just the Hebrews.

And considering the rules on tithing, i wouldn't be so sure that "compulsory redistribution of wealth" (which is not what our system is anyway) is anathema to Christianity.

Quote :

"So, to say rich people are rich at the cost of poor people is false, the rich are rich because wealth was created, the poor are, at worse, as we found them."

The rich stay rich at the cost of the poor though, if they don't necessarily get there at that cost.

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 5:11 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2010 5:09:18 PM

Quote :

"No things could work like an all inclusive resort where everyone pays a certain amount and gets a certain allowance. If you spend your allowance, you still have all the neccessities built in (all inclusive) Luxeries would be purchased with the allowances or they could be saved. You couldn't take money to make money so saving would be saving."

I actually read about an all inclusive resort just like that called North Korea. Maybe you should visit.

2/28/2010 5:09:46 PM

^ya, a moutainous nation isolated from the rest of the world is sure to do swell.

Quote :

"The rich stay rich at the cost of the poor though, if they don't necessarily get there at that cost."

exactly, I mean where do you think the money is coming from.

If I invent food and sell it I am exploiting the system by selling something that people need.

A factory owner claims ownership to the ability to work at their factory and then STEAL money from the workers just because its "his company" The owners "work" is simply "owning the company and allowing people to come work and have most of thier value stolen. aka exploitation.

Quote :

"such as a farm, a factory, or a company. These things are no accident, they took effort to create, and they did not exist before they were created. People get rich by creating these things that produce wealth."

right. they become wealthy by taking means of production hostage and selling the ability to work. Pure capitalism is worse than American slavery.

2/28/2010 5:19:01 PM

Quote :

"The rich stay rich at the cost of the poor though, if they don't necessarily get there at that cost. "

True enough. But there is the question of organizational maintenance. Companies that are willed to their workers tend to fail eventually. There must be a reason why worker owned industries are as rare as they are.

Quote :

"ya, a moutainous nation isolated from the rest of the world is sure to do swell."

Yep, those poor impoverished Swiss. If only Switzerland was less mountainous or less land locked, maybe we could stop sending them so much foreign aid.

Quote :

"If I invent food and sell it I am exploiting the system by selling something that people need. "

Would be better to leave them to starve to death?

Quote :

"right. they become wealthy by taking means of production hostage and selling the ability to work."

But the means of production did not exist without them. Why are you ignoring what I say and then simply re-stating your original premise? The means of production did not exist before someone created it. A world without the means of production would avoid the moral dilemma of wealth, at the cost of us all starving to death without the farms or factories we need.

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 5:31 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/28/2010 5:29:49 PM

Quote :

"a moutainous nation isolated from the rest of the world is sure to do swell."

South Korea seems to be doing fine.

2/28/2010 5:37:11 PM

Quote :

"Companies that are willed to their workers tend to fail eventually. There must be a reason why worker owned industries are as rare as they are. "

because they get ran out of business by more exploitive companies.

Quote :

"Yep, those poor impoverished Swedes. If only Sweden was less mountainous or less land locked, maybe we could stop sending them so much foreign aid. "

I don't mean physical isolation. Even if Switzerland closed itself off, it would run out of food under communism. It would take a global effort or at least a nation with all the resources like the US to sustain this. My friend went to an all inclusive resort in cancun and all they had was continental breakfast, water and pizza. They wanted their money back.

And I'm not sure you really want to use sweden or even switzerland as your argument for pure capitalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Effects_on_poverty

Quote :

"Would be better to leave them to starve to death? "

no. you get paid for your discovery but you don't hold it hostage to make residual income at the expense of the masses.

Quote :

" A world without the means of production would avoid the moral dilemma of wealth, at the cost of us all starving to death without the farms or factories we need. "

Just because they currently control the means of production doesn't necessarily (rarely) mean they created it. It usually means they were just sly and conniving enough to find their way to taking it hostage. If they did create, nobody said they couldn't be paid for their WORK on creating it but for them to be paid simply for possessing it is intrinsicly evil.

Quote :

"South Korea"

just because you aren't harshly exploiting those in your own country doesn't mean you aren't exploiting

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 5:46 PM. Reason : south korea is the poster boy of free global economy and a center for global capitalists]

2/28/2010 5:41:18 PM

Which brings us to the conclusion: What, mambagrl, do you want? How do you think the world should work? You seem to believe profit is theft, but what shall we replace it with? Are you really happier with George Bush deciding who will do what job for what pay, with the authority to imprison anyone that refuses? If you feel the economic system is a poor allocator of fairness, just wait until it is the political system doing the allocating.

2/28/2010 5:57:06 PM

You'll see what I want when I reveal my economic plan. Profit is not theft, profit disproportional to work input is theft. I have never insinuated the government choose who does what job.

2/28/2010 6:07:05 PM

Quote :

"just because you aren't harshly exploiting those in your own country doesn't mean you aren't exploiting"

Yes, you think that an honest job is evil exploitation. I get it. We all get it. My comparison had nothing to do with exploitation or human rights, I was simply pointing out how idiotic your geography excuse was.

Quote :

"south korea is the poster boy of free global economy and a center for global capitalists"

If capitalism is so evil then why does South Korea have a standard of living that is incredibly higher than the standard of living in North Korea, which is the poster boy for your proposed utopia?

2/28/2010 6:09:31 PM

maybe because communism automatically makes everything inside one and there is no outside help. capitalism does the opposite. It exploits everything possible for wealth. my plan is not even close to communism but if it was, the us would work because we have all the resources inside here and could easily share them.

Using one korean nation is too small of a sample size to compare. For every prosperous South Korean there are at least 100 people being exploited by them somehwere. North Korea is a complete failure. How could it be considered a posterboy? Obviously sharing won't work if theres nothing to share from in the first place.

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 6:16 PM. Reason : communism is not part of my economic plan]

2/28/2010 6:14:21 PM

Ok, so an owner-manager gets to be paid for their work as the manager. Says who? Many businesses go bankrupt. Who is going to make sure owners get paid for their work when the company goes under? Shall it come out of the national treasury? If not, then why would anyone choose to be an owner-manager with no upside but plenty of downside?

What about capital investment? Like you know, farms and factories are not free, the workers that cleared the trees and leveled the land had to be paid, as well as the makers of the machinery. Is not an owner-manager allowed to be repaid for these improvements? What about interest on their improvements? Who decides what improvements deserved being re-paid for? Again, many businesses go bankrupt, who will reimburse them for their wasted investments? The national treasury as directed by George Bush? If not, then again, why would anyone choose to be an investor with no upside but plenty of downside?

It is a profit and loss system. Without profits, they system will break down (it also breaks down without losses, mind you).

2/28/2010 6:19:30 PM

In communism the government owns the capital and there is no risk because there is no efficiency lost to competition. Thats why there can't be any outside interference. Busineses don't naturally go bankrupt, they go bankrupt because seomone with another business found a better way to exploit.

Quote :

"why would anyone choose to be an investor with no upside but plenty of downside? "

theres no downside because everyone owns everything. the upside is the wage given to the higher value job. Whats wrong? You can't make more than the value of the work you do? wahhh.

2/28/2010 6:27:26 PM

Quote :

"For every prosperous South Korean there are at least 100 people being exploited by them somehwere."

Neat. So you don't mind making up numbers?

Quote :

"North Korea is a complete failure. How could it be considered a posterboy?"

It's a posterboy of your "all inclusive resort" example. It's the closest thing on earth to what you want.

Quote :

"It usually means they were just sly and conniving enough to find their way to taking it hostage."

Or they were good at their job and worked harder than their peers and thus received promotions more frequently and eventually found themselves at the top. Oh wait, in your perceived world there is no social mobility or social justice.

2/28/2010 6:39:36 PM

Quote :

"In communism the government owns the capital and there is no risk because there is no efficiency lost to competition"

It has been pretty well established that the efficiency gains from experimentation far outweigh the inefficiency from work duplication associated with competition. Not to mention the immoral restrictions monopoly places upon the citizenry: you don't like the bread we bake? You don't like how the managers in the only steel mill are treating you? Go complain to George Bush. In other-words, go fuck yourself. In capitalism, if you don't like the bread on offer, go bake your own, maybe customers will agree. In communism, that is impossible, because the government owns all the ovens and is not about to suffer "efficiency lost to competition."

Quote :

"Whats wrong? You can't make more than the value of the work you do?"

In capitalism, this is true. You are paid in accordance with the value you supply to others. If you supply a lot of value while consuming very little value yourself, inputs, then you keep the difference as profit. Perhaps you should choose your words differently?

2/28/2010 6:48:36 PM

Quote :

"That was a lot easier for Jesus, what with the miracles and everything. In fact, lack of miracles and miracle workers is one of the biggest reasons that the US hasn't created a Jesus-style healthcare program. "

hahaha

Quote :

"Profit is not theft, profit disproportional to work input is theft. I have never insinuated the government choose who does what job."

Uhhh, so...who decides what a proper proportion for monetary compensation is, under your hypothetical system?

Oh, the government?

1. I'm sure they're better at deciding that than deciding who does what job.

2. By doing that, they're kinda deciding who does what job, or at least artificially reintroducing supply & demand into things. I mean, it's not like there's any chance whatsoever they're going to get that "proportionality" thing right, so certain jobs are still going to be much more attractive than others in terms of buck for the bang.

2/28/2010 9:03:25 PM

They can simply ajust for that by changing salaries based on demand for the job. Being a ceo is a heck of a lot easier than being a janitor.

2/28/2010 9:06:02 PM

Quote :

"Being a ceo is a heck of a lot easier than being a janitor."

I am not even going to argue with you, so don't bother responding.

I'm just taking this opportunity to make it clear and publically known that I'm laughing at you, because you are a fucking idiot.


P.S. I'm sure your society will be one helluva great success, with all the smart people mopping floors and a bunch of dumbasses running the show. I, for one, wouldn't even consider being the boss if I could make MORE money as a janitor. Shit, I'd rather be the janitor if I could even make close to as much money as the boss. Being the boss is fucking WORK! Maybe I could take another step down the ladder for even more money and just mindlessly break rocks with a sledgehammer all day.

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 9:12 PM. Reason : jesus. stop teaching. go serve fries somewhere. try not to dumb down any fast food customers.]

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 9:13 PM. Reason : i've done manual labor, and i've been the boss. being the boss absolutely warrants more pay.]

2/28/2010 9:07:21 PM

Quote :

"From : mambagrl To : pooljobs Received : Sunday February 28, 2010 at 5:09 PM Subject : whats the contradiction i'm not familier with what you're talking about. I know a king left 3 people to invest money and one just saved the money and the king was pissed at him. "

well you seem to be against people making money, but the parable seems to tell people to go out and invest their capital.

i wanted to see how you reasoned this?

2/28/2010 9:17:30 PM

It may warrant more pay but nowhere near as much as what we witness today. Do you have any idea what its like to be the ceo of a major corperation? not some small business with a few people working with you. I'm talking about somebody that does none of the actual work the company does but just oversees everything. If you aren't good at math, fine, you have a head accountant. If you don't want to oversee all operations, fine, you have operations coordinators. IF anything goes wrong just fire the head of that department. Its almost effortless at times.

The ceo may still make more but in my hypothetical situation, the ceo wouldn't be extracting wages from the people doing the manual labor. The ceo would get paid for his services.

Now if I'm a cook and cook a cake that sells for 100 bucks i get paid 20. It costed 20 to make it and the ceo pockets the other 60. In reality the ceo should be making like 20 and the cook should take the profit from HIS WORK.

now you're gonna say the cook could just start his own but if he did he can't afford to go buy a whole kitchen and as a result would have overhead of around 80 instead of 20 so he would still end up making equal or less than he already made because of competition from his old boss.

Quote :

"well you seem to be against people making money, but the parable seems to tell people to go out and invest their capital. i wanted to see how you reasoned this?"

No the king clearly told them to go invest money in THE PEOPLE and building up THE KINGDOM so it could grow and prosper. Stimulus packages of sorts. Spend the money on jobs, healthcare, education and other welfare so that the people could be more productive and fertile.

The loser kept the money as if the king and his high ups would bathe in the gold themselves. This is saying don't build wealth. Go make something that will benefit people.

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 9:24 PM. Reason : it doesn't say go get rich off of it either.]

2/28/2010 9:21:09 PM