Gospel of Wealth

James I, the same king who commissioned the most famous and most poetic edition of The Bible, was also an important patron of William Shakespeare. For these ten years, I have placed far more faith upon the words of Shakespeare than those of the Bible. One of Shakespeare's best-loved plays states quite plainly: "PUT MONEY IN THY PURSE."

The current crop of prosperity preachers are the heirs of Calvinism and the "protestant work ethic" mixing it with late 19th and early 20th century New Thought (not New Age).

Calvinism encouraged hard work and making money (to invest and do good works) because Calvinism believed everyone was predestined to Hell orHeaven. If you were predestined for Heaven then your life on earth would, or should, reflect that destiny. The Dutch East India Company became the basis of Holland's capitalist society.

Today, these churches and preachers have combined a form of Calvinism with the Norman Vincent Peale "positive thinking" philosophy and have, I think, created a new type of Christianity. Robert Schuller, founder of the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, California, is a student of Peale's and a Reformed minister. The Reformed Church is an American version of the original Dutch (Calvinist) Reformed Church in America.

It's true that the critics hardly see this new Christianity as being true to Christ's teachings. But the Church of England didn't think much of Quakers either. These new mega-churches are very large. They have huge t.v audiences. Of course, size and success doesn't mean they are right, theologically.

Are the followers of these preachers mostly successful and affluent? I don't know. I'm not sure you have to believe in God to be wealthy. Bill Gates and Sir Richard Branson have stated publicly they are atheists. So has George Soros. They are all billionaires.

The New Testament has two characters that illustrate certain points. The rich young man and Zacharias. Jesus criticized the young man for his attachment to his money and his inability to let the money go for the sake of the kingdom. But Jesus did not criticize Zacharias, a wealthy man. Jesus even stayed at his home. What was the difference between the two. Zacharias probably took what he needed and helped others with the excess. The young man was selfish with his money. Perhaps the young thought he could take it with him, Zacharias knew he couldn't.

God in the Old testament often rewarded people with great wealth in the form of camels and farm animals. He didn't tell Solomon to give his wealth away.

I have not mentioned my religious up-bringing or what religion I belong to or practice (if any). Nor will I.

Gordon Gekko (in Wall Street) said: "Greed is Good". How much is "enough"?
Look at the sports stars and celebrities. Some of their contracts give truth to the Gekko philosophy. "Show me the Money" works every time.

I've been successful and I've been homeless (at one point in my life). Success is good. I don't recall praying to God to get me out of my homelessness. I just worked hard, corrected my mistakes, and became a better caretaker of what I earned. I don't blame God for my former state of poverty and homelessness any more than I praise God for my success. When you make money you can invest and purchase things that directly or indirectly give people jobs. Your taxes go to various programs to (hopefully) help people, your donations go to causes you believe in, and most importantly you take care of your family and yourself.

This topic is going to stimulate a great conversation!

To: DreadPirateRoberts,

"PUT MONEY IN THY PURSE" is good advise today as it was in Shakespeare's time. You would enjoy a small book (still in print) called "The Richest Man in Babylon". It is a secular work written by a businessman during the 1920's. It teaches you through "parables from ancient Babylon" how to "put money in thy purse". It helped me get back on my feet after a terrible time in my life.

I highly recommend it (and anything by Shakespeare....my favorite is Othello because it describes how humans can be completely irrational and self-destructive. A little effort and the truth would have been revealed. But pride, fear and greed (in the form of Iago's ambition) prevailed. It's a cautionary tale told well by the Bard).

By understanding others' motives it has helped me "keep the money in my purse!"

I do believe that it is possible for someone to be wealthy and holy, just as much as I believe that it is possible for someone to be poor and holy. I believe that much of this 'new form of Christianity', stems from the focus of society on finances. With televangelists all over the airwaves telling people; "If you give me your money God will give it back to you 10 fold, that is if you have faith." It sometimes makes it hard not to believe what they are saying. That is of course until you see them on the way to the airport in their hummers, waiting to taxi off down the runway in a large private jet. I believe God rewards good deeds, faith, and hard work, for the rich and poor alike. However the rewards you receive are not always those involving finances.

I'm not so sure that many people would qualify as "holy" whether rich or poor. I definitely think you can be a good person regardless of your bank balance.

I think people too often equate wealth with greed. I see nothing wrong with working hard and using your God-given talents to better your family's financial situation.

Interesting to note that, on the day both ExPat and I mentioned OTHELLO, Peterman's Eye has a lovely article on a current production of it in the 'Interesting Times' section. And it stars the brilliant Chiwetel Ejiofor as the Moor.

Back to the topic on this page: I knew a man many years ago who always used to boast "Money means bulls--t to me!" But he was the most notorious skinflint any of our mutual aquaintances had ever seen. Now, I don't mean to suggest that everyone who scorns wealth is inherently hypocritical in this manner but, if you intend to feed and clothe your family, it's hard not to be. A mutual friend had recently had a baby and I finally told this guy, "If you really feel that way, then whether Pat's new son eats or starves to death also means bulls--t to you because money is the tool that will make the biggest difference there." To not respect money is to not respect human life.

Also, I notice that the poll has a majority of votes claiming that God wants us to be compassionate. Regardless of what religion the voters practice, I am forced to marvel at that vote in light of such biblical passages as "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" or, conversely, the Koran's promise that anyone who dies in the process of killing the infidel is assured a path to Heaven. Surely, these two religions cannot be the only ones with such explicit barriers to compassion written into their texts.

I don’t think the Christian god, or any other god, cares one whit about somebody’s pocketbook. Throughout the bible, god rewards or blesses followers with different gifts, including wealth, because of their obedience to his commands and laws. I highly doubt that prosperity gospel followers are toeing the line like the children of Israel did in the Old Testament.

One of the reasons why Christianity flourished in its youth was because of the sense of community it fostered. There were no tribes. It was suppose to be people from all walks of life and all nationalities worshipping Jesus and sharing their wealth and property with one another. Just read Acts to know how serious the apostles thought community property was when Peter called upon god to kill two followers because they withheld from the others. Perhaps this was the first social welfare system?

I think Osteen and the other prosperity gospel preachers are nothing but charlatans and snake oil salesmen. They believe they have received some sort of enlightenment from their almighty, finding a verse or two (out of context most likely) that resonated with them. They start to preach it and it catches on—happens all the time in religious circles. Movements come and go. This one is no different than any other.

Personally, if you want to be rich, go for it. But your money doesn’t define you as a person, your deeds do. Your spiritual path will probably help you make your decisions, but the way to accumulate wealth has nothing to do with sitting back and waiting for your god or gods to pour wealth on you—unless you worship your state’s lottery gods.

Accumulating wealth is not a passive act. You have, to reuse the Shakespeare quote, “put money in thy purse.” I have to go with the Bard on this one.

Why don't we just ask "god" what he thinks on the matter... (Waiting)

Also, what determines "holy"? Are you holy because you do good works? I know many christians who would tell me that even if I did good works all my life, but did not say the magic prayer to "Jesus" I would meet a crispy and charred end.

Not having any religious affiliation now, but a lifetime of Judeo-Christian upbringing and training this topic speaks to me personally.

If you start in the Old Testament and go by the words god supposedly said, he was clear on one thing - You (Israel) obey his teachings and instructions (The Torah - first 5 books) and he would protect you and prosper you. You would be "holy" by obeying the things he said to do... It was really quite a simple plan. I tell my kids all the time, that if you just obey what I tell you then your life will be easier. :)

King David was supposedly one wealthy sovereign and yet slept with a married woman and then had her husband sent to the front lines to die in battle. So, god's main man ("a man after god's own heart") broke one of god's no-nos and yet still prospered.

My main problem with televangelists or any religious entity spouting what "god" says is that, at the end of the day no one knows for sure what it all means. We've been left to decipher the book(s) ourselves without not even a peep from the "guy upstairs"... The beauty and horror of the bible is that you can give it to ten people to read and all ten will come away interpreting it differently.

At the end of the day no one knows for sure. Would be nice to have an all-powerful deity chime in sometime.

I'm not even sure were to start with all my opinions about this topic.

I guess I'll start with #1 And this is kind of going back to the topic a few days ago the statement by Mr. Osteen that God wants us to send our kids to College ~
This REALLY ticks me off I think part of the problem in this country is that most kids are now brought up to believe that College is a Birth Right.

College is not a Birth Right it is a privilage. Maybe because I never was "granted" the privilage to go it seems to offend me more. (I know you can always go back but that is a different discussion altogether)

I don't believe that the wealthier you are the more Godly you are.

I have been to the local "sing praise" millionaire member mega church & quite frankly I hated it. It really came off as cultish to me. I went for some "baby dedications" & the kids were dedicated & then taken right out to the nursery ~ There were NO children at the service. Not one person was in this 1,000 seat church was under the age of 17.

I was brought up to in the idea that going to church was a family event. The whole family went on sunday AM sat in their little pew & listened to the preacher & sang from the hymnals. Not seeing one child at services is quite unsettling to me. The whole sermon both times was about how you should tithe 25% to the church & how God would provide better for you. One of the Bible phrases used was "Render unto Ceaser..." Which to me was quite funny considering it Jesus used it as a response about taxes not tithing the church.

I know I don't believe in the Calvinistic Predestionation Ideals either.

I guess I just believe in the Father, Son & Holy Ghost & that part of worshipping him is taking care of what you consider to be his house in anyway that you can. If you can't afford to tithe the church than you give back in other ways volunteering at the bake sales & dinners, teaching sunday school, cleaing the church....

At my G-ma's funeral a few months back the pastor stated "The only possession parents can take to heaven with them is their children."

I really don't think he meant that how to do so was teaching them to tithe 25% to the church. I get that's the feeling & belief with these mega churches.

The Catholic Church is very rich & yet the problems it has are quite well known & costly I'm not convinced their wealth is a sign of God's favor in the least at most times in history for this Wealthy Church & Religion.

Speaking of tithing... if you do an actual study into its origins and details, an argument can be made that today's version of tithing is not a biblical model at all. The tithe was to be a tenth of your produce, not wage. The harvest from your land. The hebrews did not tithe their money, they tithed their land yield.

Another side note... Christians will spout that the Law (Torah, first 5 books of bible) is dead and they no longer are "under" it (when were christians ever?), yet they pull out tithing from the Torah and say that is still in effect today.

Mother Theresa lived out what I believe better than I do and represents the spirit of true Christianity. She chose poverty in this world in order to gain the riches of a different sort in the next. How does God value money? He has paved the streets of heaven with gold - what does that tell us? Riches serve a valid purpose but it certainly wouldn't be appropriate to worship pavement. There are much loftier goals in this life than the pursuit of a big bank balance.

If I am smart and work hard to achieve lots of money and nice things, I may very well reach my goal. But, what for? Is the goal of life comfort, happiness, and ease? Do I buy stuff just because I can? Riches are neither godly or evil, but they ARE dangerous, they tempt us to live for the temporal instead of the eternal, to focus on the meaninglessness of life. When we die, what mark will we have left for those who follow, a houseful of stuff, a bank account brimming with "resources" that may or may not be used wisely, or a legacy of change and challenge and substance? Can I do both? Why would I want to do both? It's like having one foot in this world and the other in the next and not being firmly planted anywhere. We must choose. And, if we choose to help build the next world, perhaps God will entrust us with wealth to express His giving, loving, merciful nature to those who need it most right here.

And, perhaps I don't have as much control as I think I do. Consider what King Solomon in Ecclesiastes states:

"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

I'll violate my own rule about speaking about my beliefs.

I'm a former (very) devout Episcopalian who has become an agnostic. I'm an atheist as to the existence of any of the gods of earthly religions. I'm agnostic as to the existence of a conscious First Cause, or a Prime Mover. I find it difficult to believe in any of the "gods" of any earthly religion.

I'm not a militant atheist or agnostic. As to a Creator or an after-life, I don't know so I no longer waste my time on it.

But, I still live my life as if someone one was watching. That I think is the thing to do. These prosperity preachers and the pedophile priests do not really believe that anyone is watching....that's why they do what they do.

Money is important. I think Aristotle was right when he said we should look for a mean between extremes. But even he acknowledged that the "mean" was different for each person. He did say that those who had wealth should be magnanimous.............

ExPat, thanks for "coming out of the closet." I'm a former devout Christian and am now an atheist. I agree with your comment about living life as if someone is watching. We differ on who is watching. For me, lots of people are watching: friends, family, coworkers, the guy I was rude to in the hallway, the lady I opened the door for, etc.

I would love to have tons of money that I can use for good. The recent crises in Myanmar is a great example. What's the point of being prosperous when all you do is spend it on material goods such as private jets and giant mega churches? And when you give, you do so not because you're expecting to receive blessings from some invisible skydaddy, you do so because it's the right thing to do. You should give to do good, not give to get like what Pat Robertson preaches.

Somebody is watching these prosperity gospel charlatans and most of us are not happy by what we see.

To DreadPirateRoberts: Any major religious text you choose to look at will be a fabulously complex document full of contradictions. But the heart of each is compasson: The Christian Golden Rule, The Hindu/Buddhist karma, the Islamic zakat, Hillel's condensing the whole of the Torah into "What is hateful to you, do not do it to your neighbor."

That compassion is a tough charge to keep explains why so many focus on selected portions of those edited, translated and error-prone texts and ignore the message of the whole.

As for the "prosperity gospel," I suspect it's success is largely due to the fantastic ignorance in this country of what the Bible actually says. A vast majority of Americans identify as Christian, yet surveys show only a small portion can name even one book of the gospels.

I know some very good, spiritual wealthy individuals. I also know some of the poor who are total bastards. If there is a direct correlation between one's bank balance and their holiness, I've yet to see it.

One thing is certain. If you want to project the image of holiness while fattening your wallet, become a televangelist.

I live in the land of mega churches, the pastors are the new royalty. Large billboards with their images dot the landscape. They preach not the word but the lack of funds for the new"megaplex". Seems more like networking to me than religion.

For the record I can name most of the books of the Bible I'm a bit rusty... I do agree from expierence with Bubba though ~ my husband & his family have no idea how to look up Bible passages. They are devout Catholics & have no clue.

His mom was amazed when we got married & I had already had passages picked out for the ceremony. She asked me how I found them? Well I was taught how to look up & read passages from the Bible. My parents are pretty strict German Lutherans so in our house knowing how to use the Bible was as important as learning how to read.

I actually enjoy the wealth of info the Bible provides both in its "storytelling" & in its Historical context.

as someone already stated it is a complex book but it is one of the best complex books I have & re-read quite often.

I do not agree with the mega churches I think they do more harm than good in many ways. I feel that a church with 6 pastors & 1,000's of members really doesn't help you to get to a closer relationship with God. If anything it seems more like the everyone else is doing it syndrome rather than a true belief that is drawing all these people there.

Just when I thought it was safe to participate in an online forum…….bam! Politics and now . . . shuder, religion!!

To specifically address J.Peterman’s question with my humble thoughts, I believe that God, but not religion, weighs and measures us mere mortals by whether we did the best we could, with what we have, for ourselves and others, while doing our best not to hurt anyone else in the process. So like most questions of this sort, the answer is a) why not, b) it depends, or c) all of the above.

If an organized religion can provide peace, good guidance and comfort to those who seek it without disavowing or diminishing any other belief system, then I say well done. Historically though, to me anyway, the bigger picture for religions is that they are too much of “the Church of What’s Happening Now”. By that I mean they are too much about power, control and influence for the sake of power, control and influence, oh, and add money as a subcategory to power.

Here are a few quotes from Neil Gaiman’s book “American Gods” that offer a more lighthearted, yet thought proving thoughts concerning God and Religion . . . just to lighten the topic.

"I can believe things that are true and I can believe things that aren't true and I can believe things that nobody know if they're true or not.
I believe in a personal god who cares about me and worries and oversees everything I do.
I believe in an impersonal god who set the universe in motion and went off to hang with her girlfriends and does not even know I'm alive.
I believe that anyone who claims to know what's going on will lie about the little things too.
I believe in absolute honesty and sensible social lies too.
I believe…… that it is aerodynamically impossible for a bumblebee to fly, that light is a wave and a particle, that there is a cat in a box somewhere who’s both alive and dead at the same time.
I believe that life is a game, that life is a cruel joke, and that life is what happens when you're alive and that you might as well lie back and enjoy it"

Be well all of you, I hold to my beliefs and totally respect yours.

To South-Side John:

Your quote: "Be well all of you, I hold to my beliefs and totally respect yours."
has warmed my heart....and soul.

Thank You!

To: La Donna:

I'm glad it did, and you are very welcome. I must have had a moment..

To South-Side John:

Yes, you had a very good moment...

To: South-Side John,

I read your list of quotes above and thought I'd offer the following: During the Vietnam War, when the conflict had spread to Laos and Cambodia, the U.S. Ambassador to Laos told a group of journalists that 'if anyone tells you they know the truth about what's happening in Laos, they're telling you a lie."

Bob Dylan said the "times they are a'changing"........perhaps they're not.

To: LaDonna,

Hi, LaDonna...good to "see" you again!

To: ExPat

I agree. I think the "times" do actually change once in a while, but then someone or something will come along and accidentally hit the reset button. I halfway remember a movie where a character played by Dennis Hopper (long before he became a pitchman for a major retirement investment firm, . . . which goes to show you that some things do actually change) said something like "the 1970's will make the '60s look like the '50s.

To ExPat,

Thank you for the welcome back! To be truthful, I can not go a day without reading what is happening on Peterman's Eye! And, Mr. ExPat; I do believe in all the days that I have been reading, you have only missed once not having the first morning comment (what time do you get up anyway)!?!

I share in the sorrows, clothing insight, Cuba, spiritual beliefs, and Marilyn running through LA, (!?!) maybe not in words, but always in spirit!

To: LaDonna,

Thanks. I'm enjoying life too much to waste it on sleep (Ha!Ha!). I get up usually about 5:30am, but I usually never sleep before 12:30am or 1am. It works for me. I do try to get at least six hours on occassion.

You have a great spirit. And your words are always welcome.

Now, as to Marilyn....... well, maybe not.

To: ExPat,

Thank you for the very kind words.

As for Marilyn.....

Well, ExPat was right on this matter: This topic has inspired a fantastic conversation! A lot of fascinating and though-provoking points are being made here.

To ExPat and Agent666:
I am also in your club. I am a former Presbyterian liturgist who seriously considered the clergy as a possible career path. Ten years ago, I turned atheist. While I understand what a leap this is and I respect ExPat’s willingness to doubt, permit me to point out that a theory is not rendered plausible merely because it has not been disproven.

Yes, it is good to live life as though someone is watching. Because someone is. You are always watching your own life. The conscience is watching. Our conduct determines our ability to look in the mirror without wishing to break the glass.

To Wheatgrass:
Your statement about telling your kids to obey and their lives would be easier tickled me pink. If your parenting prowess is anything like mine, I imagine your rate of success has been slightly lower than God’s. ;-)

You make an interesting, age-old point about how we have been left to decipher the books for ourselves and, when the Bible is offered to ten different scholars, you will get eleven different theories. This may well also be true of the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, etc. But, the New Testament states, “No one ever achieved salvation through the power of his own interpretation.” For a book that is commonly touted as being figurative, that statement seems awfully explicit.

To South-Side John:
The Dennis Hopper movie you’re thinking of is called FLASHBACK. The last line he says to Keefer Sutherland is “As soon as we get out of the 80s, the 90s are going to make the 60s look like the 50s.” Too bad he turned out to be mistaken.

To Bubba:
Thank you for your comments and, of course, I am well familiar with the Golden Rule, etc. Perhaps I chose my statements a little bit too much in the interest of provoking good discussion. I did not mean to actually suggest that I wasn’t aware that there were other parts of the religious texts in question that do, indeed, advocate compassion.

But I must disagree that compassion is a tough charge to keep. It has always struck me as the most natural thing in the world. Look at yesterday’s discussion of Eight Belles or the general concern over the recent cyclone and you can see that at least a certain degree of compassion is to be found in many quarters. This is why, when crusades and jihads are waged, we are quick to call the violent behavior “inhuman”. There is something decidedly unnatural about those who lack compassion (serial killers, dictators, fanatics, etc.).

As for the compassion to be found in religious doctrine, my favorite is to be found in a somewhat less mainstream (but growing) religion, Wicca. Their fundamental tenet is “An ye harm none, do as thou wilt.” I like that.

I haven't gotten into this discussion because I have been overwhelmed with thoughts and figured it would just be better if I stayed out of it. But I have come to this sight several times today to read the latest entries. And I can say, I am very impressed with... us. We all seem to have had religious training in our background but most have rejected the essential "Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior" part or "God is all the power and glory" part. This is so great! We all seem to have discovered that human compassion comes naturally from the heart and has nothing to do with some sort of creed we must avow. Some of the most compassionate people I know have rejected the "church", whatever that means to each of us, and simply gotten on with the work of reaching out to their fellow man. Any time I have expressed skepticism with some church doctrine, like the trinity or the teachings of Paul, I have gotten shocked looks of disbelief and perhaps people stepping away so they don't get struck by the lightening that was sure to strike. Yet these same people refuse to actually study the church history to discover that the trinity was actually a committee decision to explain a tricky matter of belief the church had backed itself into. These same people will also, for instance, refuse to think about the injustice they impose by causing a state of second class citizenship on a whole group of people just because they have a different sexual orientation. And they quote all sorts of biblical references to back up their actions.... Sorry. These are the sort of thoughts that I have been holding back all day. Better quit before I really start ranting and raving.

To Spinner:

As South-Side John stated (can you tell I really liked this!?!) "Be well all of you, I hold to my beliefs and totally respect yours."

And, with that in mind, I need to state that I have not rejected the essential "Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior" part or "God is all the power and glory" part.

Great conversation today. Sorry I got into it so late. When I looked at it this morning I figured it would inspire some interesting dialogue and checking back tonight, I see it sure did.

To; Spinner and LaDonna,

As you can tell from all my comments today, I long ago abandoned religious belief but have not yet abandoned a "prime mover" (But I'm close to it).

I respect both your views because I can sense something that is lacking in most people today: SINCERITY TOWARDS OTHERS AND RESPECT FOR YOURSELF. Perhaps that's one definition of "compassion".

This also goes for everyone else who engaged in this "conversation" today. I've also returned to this site to keep up-dated on the comments.

To: La Donna

I don’t think Spinner meant “reject” in the sense that we rejected the philosophy entirely (though clearly, some have). Rather, I think she was indicating that even those here who do hold devout religious convictions resisted the temptation to write comments like “God is all the power…” etc. as if they were arguments or could, by the mere presence of the exclamation, be used to support a philosophical position.

Speaking of philosophical positions, I want to say that I’m in full agreement with Spinner here. I especially like the point about how “compassion comes naturally from the heart and has nothing to do with some sort of creed we must avow”. She said it better than I could have. I know we disagree a lot (and sometimes pretty vehemently) so I take great joy in being able to say that, on this point, we are totally eye-to-eye.

On that note, while South-Side John is obviously being a complete gentleman when he talks about respecting everyone’s beliefs. There are times that kind of good manners gives me pause (not the motivation, of course, but the act it necessitates). The belief that it is acceptable to behead women in the streets on suspicion of adultery, the belief that people whose sexual preferences are different from one’s own are second-class citizens (another point I owe to Spinner), or the belief that it is the duty of every member of your religion to kill Jews. These are all beliefs that I do not feel merit respect. I have no reason to imagine such beliefs are espoused here but I’m sure you get my drift. Let us be wary of being TOO chivalrous in the face of conflicting beliefs.

To: DreadPirateRoberts

Your point is well taken. I must really be getting rusty since the last time I was the Company's chief spokesperson in our negotiations with the Bargaining Unit. I would never had made such an open ended statement that could be perceived as a blank check. The context for my ending statement was, and so far still is, the beliefs and opinions expressed by those in this forum.

I could never be tolerant of persecution, injustice ,hatred or discrimination by any society, especially not if it's done in the name of religion, or worse yet, in god's name.

To the good folks of this forum, be very well.

I'm just gonna watch today's sports highlight.

.....and then I'm going to watch a Three Stooges marathon just to lighten up.