The Rich Fool

My bid for the scariest passage in the Bible is Luke 12:2-3:

There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.

That's an apocalyptic passage. Some day, Jesus is saying, all will be made known and everyone will get what they deserve. Like every apocalypse, it's Very Bad News for those who abuse power. It would be a terrifying thing to be Dick Cheney or Karl Rove and to read such a passage and believe it were true.

But as with all of Jesus' apocalyptic sayings, it's a double-edged message. It is a source of hope, an affirmation that, as Martin Luther King Jr. said, "the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." But it's also more than a bit discomfiting -- there's nothing I have said in the dark that will not be heard in the daylight, too? Um. Oh. Here's hoping the arc of the universe also bends toward mercy.

The rest of this chapter, Luke 12, is an equally unsettling mixture of comfort and warning. Here Jesus presents some very reassuring images of God -- "not one sparrow is forgotten," "consider the lilies of the field," "Do not be afraid, little flock." Yet these are all intermixed with constant reminders of mortality and inexorable judgment -- "I will show you whom you should fear."

You won't find a better summary of or commentary on this entire chapter than what Shakespeare provides in Hamlet V.ii:

Not a whit, we defy augury: there's a special
providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now,
'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be
now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the
readiness is all: since no man has aught of what he
leaves, what is't to leave betimes?

That's Luke 12, right there. Watchfulness and readiness, providence and death, "no man has aught of what he leaves" and "five in one family divided against each other."

This passage also has much to say about the privilege and responsibility of stewardship. "Who then is the faithful and wise manager?" Jesus asks in verse 42, explicitly summarizing a theme that threads through the entire chapter. That word "manager" (or "steward" in the King James Version's borrowing from Wycliffe's "sty-warden") is, in the Greek, oikonomos. That's the same word from which we get the English word economist. "Economics" and "stewardship" are, thus, the same thing -- etymologically, if not in practice. (Fun with Greek: Next time you meet an economist, ask them where they studied sty-wardening.)

This Wednesday morning visit to Luke's Gospel was prompted by the suggestion, in comments to the previous post, that Luke chapter 12 offers some kind of refutation of the estate tax. That's not exactly the kind of oikonomia this passage concerns itself with, but as someone who is both a Christian and a supporter of the American estate tax, I need to explore whether or not this claim is defensible.

Short answer: It's not defensible. It's not even comprehensible.

Here are the two verses -- Luke 12:13-14 -- which our friend suggests require faithful Christians to campaign for the abolition of the estate tax:

Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me."

Jesus replied, "Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?" ...

There are several biblical passages regarded as classic texts on the subject of taxation, such as Romans 13:1-7, but I've never before encountered anyone suggesting that this passage should be one of them because, well, it has nothing to do with taxes.* The dispute here is between a man and his brother, which is why I like to think that Jesus heard this and thought, "Hmm, two brothers in a dispute over their inheritance ... I could use that."

Characteristically, Jesus answers with a question and a parable. That parable, usually called the story of the Rich Fool, is found in Luke 12:13-21 -- which is how this passage is usually cited so as to avoid chopping it off mid-paragraph the way our friend in comments has done. Here's the whole thing:

Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me."

Jesus replied, "Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?" Then he said to them, "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."

And he told them this parable: "The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. He thought to himself, 'What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.'

"Then he said, 'This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I'll say to myself, "You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry." '

"But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?'

"This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God."

As I said, this passage has nothing to do with the subject of taxation -- that's not the kind of economics/stewardship being discussed here. But our friend in comments wasn't merely trying to glean from this parable some guidance on the unrelated subject of taxation. He was arguing that this parable provides incontrovertible proof that the unperturbed hoarding of wealth is a divinely appointed human right. Reading this passage in this way takes loads of chutzpah and more than a little bit of insanity.

I believe that a progressive estate tax is wise, prudent and just policy for a society concerned about equality of opportunity and the preservation of democracy and personal liberty rather than oligarchy. That belief is based on a host of principles -- e.g., justice and liberty are Good Things -- and prudential judgments that I believe are both reasonable and congruent with my Christian faith. This is, in other words, not a sectarian belief that I would seek to impose on secular society, but rather a conclusion that I think would be shared by all people of good will.

That's quite different from a sectarian belief based upon proof-texts or on an unexamined, visceral "What would Jesus say?" approach.

But, as a purely sectarian exercise, what would Jesus say? As Luke 12 illustrates, Jesus didn't tend to offer straight answers. Or, rather, he offered very straight answers, but to different questions than the ones he was asked. I think the conversation would boil down to something like this:

"Teacher, what sort of estate tax policy should we support?"

"Don't leave an estate. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* Although, if I worked for the IRS, I'd have a little plaque with Luke 12:2-3 on it hanging behind my desk.

Comments

[Spalanzani]

Ummm...while there were many things that were screwed up in Scott's original quotes, my mistake with the html tags wasn't one of them. The first half of that quote goes: "No, the quote I gave wasn't specifically about taxes. It did ,however"

Sorry.

[daniel]

anyone have a link to that brilliant old acrostic?

@fp

There there, Scott. *hug*

[Technomad]

"TECHNOMAD! What have you done this time?"

*disingenous look* "I'm following Jesus' words to give to the poor. Look at them...all happy, and smiling...Why aren't you happy?"

*through gritted teeth* "When Jesus said to 'give to the poor,' he was not referring to that big batch of Joker Venom you just finished reverse-engineering!"

[Jeff]

daniel, to successfully Googlebomb, you have to link the name with the site, so :Scott. QED QE2 Quo Vadis

I was merely explaining the freedom atheism can allow. That being said, there are many religious dogmas which don't allow such freedom, and those embracing it are already calling their religions and linked faiths into question if and when they do question this exclusivity.

Exactly. Consider Micah 4:3 "They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore." and Micah 4:13 "Rise and thresh, O Daughter of Zion, for I will give you horns of iron; I will give you hoofs of bronze and you will break to pieces many nations." I can say that I prefer 4:3 over 4:13. A Christian (or Jew) who reads these passages must find someway to reconcile them (4:13 takes place before 4:3, frex) and the Christian must also reconcile both with the teacings of Christ. I'm not saying it can't be done, or is a foolish enterprise, but it takes more work than picking 4:3 over 4:13.

See, bulbul, I did my homework!

[bulbul]

See, bulbul, I did my homework!
Oh how fast they grow up... *sniffle* I'm so proud of you, Jeff :)
That's an A in Exegesis 101. Now let's proceed to Exegesis 102. First, we shall consider the WHOLE of the Book of Micah - the setting, the historical context and especially the genre. Hint: Micah is one of the minor prophets (which I've always thought is a pretty cool name for a band). Second, we shall read the chapter in question more carefully, starting with verse 1 which begins with "In the last days.../At the end of days..."

It's also been pointed out that a LOT of people consider "picking and choosing" to be not fully participating in that religion.
Dunno about religion, but I do know about exegesis. You are not "picking and choosing" parts of a religion. You are picking and choosing parts of a sacred text. You are, in fact, treating that text not as a text, but as a collection of aphorisms or possibly maxims. This is perfectly fine with me. Really. But you must realize that a) if you do this, you are not interpreting the text and b) this has nothing to do with religion, let alone with participating in it. You are merely picking your favorite bits from a literary work. Nothing wrong about that as long as you realize that. I know you do. As for the other guys, what katre said.

[Duane]

First, we shall consider the WHOLE of the Book of Micah

Maybe we should start with an easier book first, like the Book of Noah.

[Bugmaster]

He knows when you are sleeping...

Haha, I've always liked that song. It's just so... creepy. Whenever I hear it, I imagine some hapless researcher from Arkham writing it.

You'd better watch out
You'd better not cry
You'd better watch out,
I'm telling you why:
Santa Claus is coming to town, seeping inexorably ever closer through spaces and dimensions unknowable to Man, for this world you imagine as being real is nothing but a thin layer of grease on the surface of the dark, eldritch abyss where Santa dwells. Your human minds are inconsequential compared to his cosmic consciousness, your thoughts and dreams are as tiny, shambling doodles of a child compared to the majesty of the Universe -- which, in itself, is but a tiny spark in the darkness of the true world were Santa dwells. So, sleep while you can, and be good while you can, for Santa knows your deepest thoughts, your darkest desires, and when the stars are right, he shall briefly intersect our world, drowning the just and the unjust alike in a deluge of truth known by most as "madness".

[Edo]

@Bugmaster: snip

And then I heard it, the unmistakable grinding thump and the crunch of the snow on the shingles as it landed, that sled from the unfathomable depths of alien continua, upon my roof.

My knuckles went white as I clutched my quilt, not daring to move, and in the window across the street I saw reflected the forms of those nine coursers, not quite muntjacs, not quite moose, nor brockets, but something combining traits of all of these into some monstrous new chimera that I cannot and dare not recall...

[Nenya]

*giggling madly over Cthulu!Santa*

[Rivka]

as Martin Luther King Jr. said, "the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice."

He did say it, but he was quoting the renowned Unitarian minister and social reformer Theodore Parker.

I don't think I agree that "one good thing about being an atheist would be that you could choose any morality that you desired". Your sense of right and wrong isn't really something you get to choose.

[Pope Easier Rhino I]

"[W]hat's in Paris Hilton's bank account is no more your business than what's in her twat."

True enough, perhaps, but once she dies, there are laws governing both. Surely a staunch conservative isn't in favor of repealing necrophilia laws?

[MikeJ]

However, people can design their own pizza!

Isn't believing that everyone must come to their own personal understanding of pizza the gnostic heresy? I also like the gnocchi heresy.

[Spalanzani]

Scott: "Yep. "Look at the morality of your own actions instead of obsessing over the actions of others while sitting in judgement over them, feeling morally superior" is a command to liberals about money as much as it is to conservatives about sex. When Jesus says 'no', he isn't just talking to your political opponents.

Let me put it in simple terms you might understand: what's in Paris Hilton's bank account is no more your business than what's in her twat.

So, just to clarify, you really do think "conservatives=sex while liberals=money" is a reasonable statement?

I really gotta go get me a pair of those magic 3-D glasses.

[Ecks]

See Scott intent matters. A lot. If I shoot your pet dog, killing it, it makes a big difference if I shot it for fun, or if I shot it because it had rabies and was going to run around biting random people. Conservatives want to regulate what Paris Hilton can do with her unmentionables because, heck, they like telling people who not to fuck (pardon my parisien). Liberals don't want to grab your moneys just because they enjoy doing it. They do so (in a careful and measured way) as a means to solve serious problems that individuals are either unwilling or incapable of solving individually. You may not have a personal problem with letting your rabid dog run around biting who it will, but the rest of us have a compelling interest in doing something about it.

You may now eat crow*

*hahaha, the absolute refusal admit error is the *one* thing Scott has in common with... err, certain other slacktivists, who shall remain nameless**.

** hahaha, you'll never guess who. Oh mirth.

[not someone else]

Your sense of right and wrong isn't really something you get to choose.

It kind of is. You get to choose which basic assumptions you want to work with- idealism? freedom? safety? yourself, your tribe, your family, humanity, the world? other?- and that means a lot in what sort of beliefs you end up with after that.

Well, maybe "general you" isn't true in this case. Some people may have more problem switching around, and I don't think any of it has to do with whether or not you believe in gods.

[Bugmaster]

@Edo:
That... that was beautiful. *sniff* Can I have your autograph ?

[Jeff]

You are merely picking your favorite bits from a literary work. Nothing wrong about that as long as you realize that.

I view them as literary works, but to their believers, they are sacred texts. (We had this discussion not that long ago; I think the consensus was to call them "sacred" or "religious" texts while understanding that those who didn't believe in them found value in them as literature, history and philosophy.)

[Caravelle utbka Rozzen]

My understanding of agnosticism is more that it is the assertion that one *cannot* know if there is a god. I think you can be an atheist and an agnostic simultaneously.

Actually, the assertion that one *cannot* know if there is a god seems more like "having a brain and using it for two seconds". To me agnosticism would be not having a firm belief either way on the "is there a God or not" issue.
But I've heard of heated Usenet debates about the definition of atheist vs agnostic so if we really wanted to go down that road we should probably see what wikipedia thinks first.

[Jeff]

You are merely picking your favorite bits from a literary work. Nothing wrong about that as long as you realize that.

I view them as literary works, but to their believers, they are sacred texts. (We had this discussion not that long ago; I think the consensus was to call them "sacred" or "religious" texts while understanding that those who didn't believe in them found value in them as literature, history and philosophy.)

[ako]

You know, Scott, the bolding is less fun than the (TM). It just lacks the Scott style which I've come to know and enjoy. Bring back classic Scott! Bring back the (TM)! Or better yet, the (TM). Come on, Scott! Please!

[Spalanzani]

ako: "Or better yet, the (TM)."

I think you mean the (TM) (TM) (TM) .

[bulbul]

I view them as literary works, but to their believers, they are sacred texts.
Sure, but what does it matter to you?

[Jesurgislac]

Isn't believing that everyone must come to their own personal understanding of pizza the gnostic heresy? I also like the gnocchi heresy.

Mmmm, gnocchi. With pesto!

[MikhailBorg]

Caravelle ullaa Rozzen?

Ulllaaaaaa!

"But on the landward horizon, there appeared the silhouette of a fighting machine. Another came, and another; striding over hills and trees, pulling far out to sea and blocking the exit of the steamer. Between them lay the silent gray ironclad Thunderchild..."

Wait. UTBKA.

Sorry, I can't read clearly this early in the morning.

[Spalanzani]

The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one, he said
The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one
Yet still they come!

Dadadadada- daa
dododododo- doo

Goddammit, that entire album is going to be running through my head for at least a week now.

[Jeff]

Mmmm, gnocchi. With pesto!

That's a yummy combo! Hey, I can't agree with you on a Thursday, can I? Won't the universe explode or something?

[indifferent children]

> I also like the gnocchi heresy.

I'm an agnocchic.

[Jesurgislac]

Scott: Thanks for making the double standard you share with Fred so damn explicit.

*big hugs*, Scott.

indifferent children: I'm an agnocchic.

Strozzopretti? Or Suspiros de Monja?

[Johnny Pez]

Eldritch Christmas to all, and to all a soul-destroying night!

[indifferent children]

Given that choice, Strozzopretti. Ma preferisco spezzatini e polenta.

[inge]

Jake: I think you can be an atheist and an agnostic simultaneously.

This has been described as "gnostic atheism" ("I believe there is no god") vs. "agnostic atheism" ("I do not believe there is a god".)

[Lauren]

Let me put it in simple terms you might understand: what's in Paris Hilton's bank account is no more your business than what's in her twat.

But in neither case is my interest=0. As illustrated by the imprisonment of the "Charity Girls," the incidence and spread of blood-born pathogens is a valid concern of public health. The controvesy has everything to do with whether the response was appropriate and proportional to the threat, not whether the gov't has a right to control VD.

My concern with the contents of Paris Hilton's twat has everything to do with where it comes from and where it goes, not with the morality of what may be in there. Likewise, her bank account.

[inge]

Jeff: I'm more of an agnostic: Don't know, don't care.

Brings to mind another two-liner about the difference between atheists and agnostics:

Agnostic: "I'll believe in God when I see him[/her/it]."
Atheist: "I don't believe you will."

[mmack]

Olives are terrible anywhere. I don't want anchovies anywhere near my pizza, but capers provide a lovely vegetarian alternative.

Jesu,

I once thought the same as you on olives and anchovies, but mrs. mmack and her mother taught me differently. The key to really enjoying them as pizza toppings is to go with a white pizza. That is, skip the tomato paste and go with olive oil and shredded Italian cheeses (Quattro Formmagio [provolone, asiago, mozzarrella, parmesan or romano]). mrs. mmack either buys premade pizza crusts, or her mom makes them, and we just add the topping, pop into the oven for ten minutes, and we have a pizza that vastly exceeds the quality and taste of a restaurant pizza. Also, try green olives instead of the black olives, I think that makes a big taste difference. The key is, the saltiness of the olives and anchovies make you want to take a drink your beer or red wine, and once you wash it down you want another delicious, salty bite.

It's win-win I tells ya'!

[A Kennedy]

The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one, he said
The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one
Yet still they come!

Please... WHICH ALBUM!!?!?! They played this for us in grade school when we read "The War of the Worlds," but it was ages ago... please tell me the name of the album. Please! I'll be your friend...

[MikhailBorg]

Here's a whole website, with the album, the new touring musical, desktops, etc...

http://www.thewaroftheworlds.com/

[A Kennedy]

Yaay! Thank you. I could, of course, have looked it up on Google myself, but... you know... my fingers are tired :P

Seriously, thank you very much.

[MikhailBorg]

My pleasure.

I don't know who here is familiar with Star Blazers/Space Battleship Yamato, but I won several model contests by combining anime and victorian sci-fi: I found a model kit of the ship the Thunderchild is supposed to be, and built it as "raised from the deep" with a Michelson-Morley propelling system, solar boilers, lightning projection guns, and an Etheric Wave Cannon in the bow to take the fight back to those dastardly Martians.

[Bugmaster]

As I understand it, Agnosticism is the position that the existence of gods (or lack thereof) is not only unknown, but actually unknowable. Weak Atheism is the position that gods may exist, but most likely do not. Strong Atheism is the position that gods do not and cannot exist, period. Similarly, Weak Theism is the position that gods may or may not exist, but most likely they do; whereas Strong Theism is the position that some specific gods exist, period.

In practice, most people hold some combination of these beliefs. For example, Christians are Strong Theists with respect to Jesus, and Strong Atheists with respect to most other gods. Many unbelievers such as myself are Weak Atheists in general, but Strong Atheists with respect to some specific gods that are logically inconsistent (such as the Fundamentalist Christian omni-God).

I've never really met a live agnostic (as defined in my first paragraph), though. I think they're rare.

[Bugmaster]

and built it as "raised from the deep" with a Michelson-Morley propelling system, solar boilers, lightning projection guns, and an Etheric Wave Cannon in the bow to take the fight back to those dastardly Martians.

Pictures ! The crowd demands pictures !

[MikhailBorg]

Pictures ! The crowd demands pictures !

I'll try to find them. The only ones I have aren't great quality, and weren't scanned well either (this was 15 years ago, or so).

The model itself did not survive several changes of residence :(

[not_scottbot]

'Thanks for making the double standard you share with Fred so damn explicit.'

This is an honest question - do you ever accept the idea that an individual/group can determine what other individuals/groups do? As an example, consider a river that runs through numerous communities, states, and nations. Do the people at the headwaters, or the people living upriver of others, have any responsibilities to those living downstream?

This is anything but a trick question, by the way - such situations have occurred over the globe for centuries, and been resolved in any number of ways, some methods being more successful than others. And to the best of my knowledge, in virtually all cases, those living downriver have been successful in convincing those upriver that they have responsibilities that transcend local concerns or beliefs, however cherished.

I would think that shows that in practical terms, human beings are able to live together even when forced to change their practices (for example, raw sewage pouring from a city into the river), even at a time when few people understood what caused cholera, much less how to cure it.

In other words, does objective reality have anything to do with your views? Because sometimes, I just wonder whether you think everything involving people is merely subjective. Personally, I believe in an objective reality, while recognizing that my perceptions of it are as flawed and limited as anyone else's. But still, drinking someone's else sewage is a bad idea, and it isn't hypocritical to use any reasonable means to prevent that from happening.

Some people call such a perspective 'civilized,' without worrying about whether it fits into a liberal or conservative perspective.

Re: Santa Claus is Coming to Town - Singer Jim Stafford explained how scary that song is: "I used to wait for that dude under my bed with a baseball bat."

Bugmaster: I've never really met a live agnostic For a very generous value of "met", take a gander at John Wilkins extensively quoting Bertrand Russell.

And re the larger discussion on where an atheist's morality comes from: I don't think it's really different from where theists get theirs. It seems to me that most people use religion to justify their morality rather than to form it.

[Jeff]

Agnosticism is the position that the existence of gods (or lack thereof) is not only unknown, but actually unknowable.

Raises hand! That sounds good to me, for some gods. The existence of some gods, such as those that frequently take physical form, would be easier to disprove (see "The Man Who Would Be King").

Today, I took my mom to see The Cathedral of Our Lady of The Angels. It's a beautiful place and very awe-inspiring. They've even re-created the former church just outside the mausoleum.

[Prankster]

Jesus had a perfect opportunity to say, "Scott, shut the hell up," and didn't. Therefore, everything Scott says must be correct!

By the way, how does not telling one particular guy to give everything he has to the poor counteract the many times he did say that to other people?

[Pope Easier Rhino I]

At what point did the morality of the estate tax become entangled with the morality of giving your money to the poor? Because last I checked, the money from estate taxes goes to the government, not the poor. If Jesus came down tomorrow and told me personally, in unambiguous terms, that I should give all my money to the poor, I wouldn't walk down to the IRS and hand them a check. I might suspect that it wasn't Jesus, but I wouldn't be visiting the IRS. I don't think that volunteering tax dollars qualifies as charity. If you want to debate the morality of taxation, debate away. But you've got peanut butter in my chocolate.

[mds]

I think you mean the (TM) (TM) (TM) .

So here it comes, the sound of drums.
(Here come the drums, here come the drums.)

[ako]

Vote Saxon Scott! Because he's the only one who can save us from the Fredly menace!

I'm very sorry.

[Jeff]

I'm very sorry.

3 Our Fathers and 2 Hail Marys.