The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: EconDiva on November 03, 2020, 07:47:24 AM
-
Would love to get the perspective of other Christians on this:
https://medium.com/@jeffreyhaver/a-christian-perspective-on-the-fire-movement-19396f3548ab
-
I don't disagree, though I think being a good steward of your resources is excellent. Also, we don't talk too much about usury these days, but I've got some qualms.
-
I don't see storing up enough to live on in the future as antithetical to any of the passages quoted. They warn against greed and against putting money/possessions above faith.
I wonder how the author interprets the story of joseph and his storehouses.
-
Noble to give away 50-70% of your income, sure. But I would rather give away my time & money (to my family & community, certainly not the church). The best way to accomplish that is to pursue FI in my opinion.
-
Phenomenally stupid, and horrifically short sighted. Give away all excess while in your healthy working years, ensuring you become dependent when you can no longer produce the correct amount of income.
I echo @rockstache in that christians must carefully evaluate wealth. That author typed up his opinion on a computer (phenomenal personal wealth), which sucked power off a functional grid (national wealth), and posted on the Internet (world wealth).
I’m catholic, so I do embrace vocations that are called to poverty, and I do believe that the rest of us are called to support those who feel such a deep call to a holy life. I am not personally called to poverty, and I do not see savings as inherently evil. What I must guard against is greed.
I had a helluva night, so that might be a bit of a ramble. But if you can’t be weird on the internet, what joy is there to life?
-
Its something to consider, it is easy to get obsessive about your stache. But I think if you take the Bible in whole, and not just cherry pick a couple of verses that are referring more to your heart, there are many more verses that talk about hard work and being efficient with your money as being wise and will generally be rewarded. I believe wealthy in context is referring to what the general population is striving for - McMansion, sports cars, fancy meals, etc. Having a modest home, cooking your own food, minimizing your possessions, and being smart with your money does not sound like storing up your treasures for this world.
-
Woof.
I mean, if one assumes that FI/RE exists solely so that the early-retiree can lounge around and not be productive, sure - that's not such a great look if they also consider themselves a Christian.
But of course it entirely misses the point. The author clearly did not look past the assumption that anyone on the path to FI/RE is greedy, and that they don't want to contribute anything to society. It's as if anyone who decides living to work isn't for them is a fat, lazy sluggard. What is working to live anyway?
Look at the man, MMM, himself. Sure, he's not a Christian (or I assume as much) but that hasn't stopped him living his life helping others around him, directing his funds toward causes he believes in, and just generally not being a burden to the rest of society.
Doesn't keeping one's house in order ensure that welfare resources are going to be spent on those who need them? And healthcare, too? After all - it would seem (anecdotally) that people around here mostly give a shit about their health.
Or what about creating economic opportunities for those who would replace the outgoing corporate participant? If an early retiree decides to finally call it quits, in most situations that opens a door at a lower level, earlier, for someone else to improve their own station. And that domino effect keeps going down the economic food chain.
And there is also the blatant blanket assumption by the author that a Christian early retiree wouldn't even consider donating more time to the Church, or to helping the poor, or the sick, or the elderly.
Blegh.
-
Someone has the complete wrong idea of what the FIRE movement is.
-
The author is correct that the Bible is clear that a love of money is the root of evil. It is inconsistent for a Christian to place their confidence in their well being in money. However, the Bible also talks about a good man leaving an inheritance to his children's children.
I personally believe that a Christian pursuing FIRE so that they can be lazy the rest of their lives while relying on their money to protect them is wrong. However, it can make sense for a Christian to be a good steward with their finances and reach FIRE so that they can have more freedom to help others and serve God. It's all about the attitude. Is money a selfish ambition that takes away from your trust in God and is to be used for personal gain? Or, is it a blessing from God that can be used to help yourself and others? FIRE is a much better use of time & money than living a typical American life filled with debt, selfish consumerism and busyness that doesn't accomplish much. Just like many things, money can be used for good or evil.
-
All of the Christians I know who live by these ideals are also Trump supporters. So they say this about my lifestyle, while voting for someone whose wealth is supposed to be proof that God is on his side (prosperity gospel). They just don't think *they* should be saving for retirement, much less early retirement.
We are actually concerned that one family member may have given away so much (they join these small evangelical churches and support the pastors' whims, as well as the missions) that they are struggling right now, despite an upper middle class income and recently paid off mortgage on a very modest house. It is currently unclear how much is pandemic depression and how much is actual financial issues, so we are starting with mental health, but they have claimed that they can't afford groceries when the teenagers (who are losing weight) claim they are hungry.
The other family are just really bad with money and it suits them to paint that as a moral high ground, even though what they actually do with the money they do bring in is spend it, not tithe it.
-
The author is correct that the Bible is clear that a love of money is the root of evil. It is inconsistent for a Christian to place their confidence in their well being in money. However, the Bible also talks about a good man leaving an inheritance to his children's children.
I personally believe that a Christian pursuing FIRE so that they can be lazy the rest of their lives while relying on their money to protect them is wrong. However, it can make sense for a Christian to be a good steward with their finances and reach FIRE so that they can have more freedom to help others and serve God. It's all about the attitude. Is money a selfish ambition that takes away from your trust in God and is to be used for personal gain? Or, is it a blessing from God that can be used to help yourself and others? FIRE is a much better use of time & money than living a typical American life filled with debt, selfish consumerism and busyness that doesn't accomplish much. Just like many things, money can be used for good or evil.
Your post resonates with me; very well stated.
-
I know a man who worked in the money industry. He saved hard and invest and became independently wealthy to the point where he no longer needed to work. So he quit. (what we'd refer to as fire.).
According the author of that article he is not a good christian and has turned his back on God and the teaching of the bible.
However that article has been written mainly to get people reading it and ultimately give money to the author as per the begging link at the end. So its ok to write that and beg? I call bull.
The man I knew went from the world of money and then into the church. He did his time learning and became a Reverend.
He raised money (and contributed his own) to bring a church to a very poor area that had none and has spend the last 20 years bring a place of worship to those that were distanced from it. He carried on investing his money and plans to leave a very large chunk of it in a trust to buy land in the area, build a church and provide funding so that teaching can continue after his death.
you trying to tell be that an article that is written about criticizing saving and preservation of wealth (with a healthy dose of begging for themselves) serves a higher purpose than someone who has actually done that and uses that wealth to preach the message of the bible.
I'd suggest that the author is a low brow hypocritical POS in comparison and fails to comprehend anything about fire and its potential.
-
I'd suggest that the author is a low brow hypocritical POS in comparison and fails to comprehend anything about fire and its potential.
You forgot twatwaffle. Please allow me to add it. The authour is, in general, a twatwaffling crank wanker.
Thank you.
-
Someone has the complete wrong idea of what the FIRE movement is.
I've actually been kicking around alternative terms, because it seems the term FIRE has gotten... corrupted, at least. "Save a ton by being a jerk to everyone and retire to kick back and golf!" or such.
FINIC or FINIR - "Financially Independent - No Income Considerations" or "Financially Independent - No Income Requirements." Or just simplify and go with FI, because it means about the same. More of a focus on "When I don't have to earn a living directly, I can do that which I feel I ought to do, regardless of the salary."
I broadly disagree with the article, though I'm not going to write a full response - mostly because I've helped lead some courses on money and the Bible, and it is quite complex. Even just going through the 4 Gospels with what Jesus said directly covers a lot of ground, and the themes of money/wealth/resources/etc are woven through the rest of the Bible as well. And I don't have the time right now to really dive into it, since I still have a job...
The author touches on a few relevant passages, and I certainly agree about the love of money - but I disagree that the FIRE movement is purely about the love of money. Done right, IME, money becomes somewhat closer to air - it's available, and you automate stuff enough that it's just not much of a consideration. We're able to be quite generous as needs come up, and... I don't think through what it does with regards to a FIRE date or such. I've never calculated that. I like my job, I like being generous, our net worth is heading up at a decent enough rate, and at some point work will become optional, but I don't know exactly when or how, and if things change enough to alter that, well... OK. Doesn't really bother me one way or the other.
But there is an awful lot throughout the Bible about planning and preparing for the future as well - and at responsible investment and growth of money. The Parable of the Talents covers this, and that's before you get into Proverbs, Joseph, and plenty of other discussion about wise planning for the future.
If you've condensed it into a short read, as the article author has, you've almost certainly picked your conclusion and cherry picked verses to support it, which is exactly what this article did.
-
Someone has the complete wrong idea of what the FIRE movement is.
I've actually been kicking around alternative terms, because it seems the term FIRE has gotten... corrupted, at least. "Save a ton by being a jerk to everyone and retire to kick back and golf!" or such.
FINIC or FINIR - "Financially Independent - No Income Considerations" or "Financially Independent - No Income Requirements." Or just simplify and go with FI, because it means about the same. More of a focus on "When I don't have to earn a living directly, I can do that which I feel I ought to do, regardless of the salary."
I think sticking with FI and leaving out the RE tends to make things simpler. But the term FIRE is just so catchy.
I shouldn't really delve into the greater topic. My view of religion is generally pretty negative, so no argument I made would be in good faith.
-
The problem I see as a Christian interested in FIRE is that most of the people who already have a lot of wealth follow the same code of behavior as followers of Ayn Rand and Anton LaVey — which are essentially one and the same — namely selfishness as a virtue and Social Darwinism. If we want to make the Earth more like Christ’s Kingdom, then we need to counteract these influences and we can only do that if we are free to act. We are only completely free to act when we have the resources necessary to combat the problem without being ruined. So, accumulating enough wealth to be free to act is a noble goal. However, accumulating wealth to control and hurt other people is sinful.
-
I'd suggest that the author is a low brow hypocritical POS in comparison and fails to comprehend anything about fire and its potential.
You forgot twatwaffle. Please allow me to add it. The authour is, in general, a twatwaffling crank wanker.
Thank you.
and stumphumper.
-
You forgot twatwaffle. Please allow me to add it. The authour is, in general, a twatwaffling crank wanker.
and stumphumper.
... what does this add to the discussion, in the slightest? I'm unclear as to if the author is Christian or not, though assume they are based on some phrasing. And I see no value whatsoever in calling them names, I'd be far more interested in having a discussion with them, starting from the Bible, and working through the respective points. It's a large enough book that if you pick and choose, you can back just about any point you want, but that doesn't mean the text, as a whole, backs everything equally.
-
You forgot twatwaffle. Please allow me to add it. The authour is, in general, a twatwaffling crank wanker.
and stumphumper.
... what does this add to the discussion, in the slightest? I'm unclear as to if the author is Christian or not, though assume they are based on some phrasing. And I see no value whatsoever in calling them names, I'd be far more interested in having a discussion with them, starting from the Bible, and working through the respective points. It's a large enough book that if you pick and choose, you can back just about any point you want, but that doesn't mean the text, as a whole, backs everything equally.
I agree with you.
I think we all have the capacity to respectfully disagree without resorting to name calling.
-
You forgot twatwaffle. Please allow me to add it. The authour is, in general, a twatwaffling crank wanker.
and stumphumper.
... what does this add to the discussion, in the slightest? I'm unclear as to if the author is Christian or not, though assume they are based on some phrasing. And I see no value whatsoever in calling them names, I'd be far more interested in having a discussion with them, starting from the Bible, and working through the respective points. It's a large enough book that if you pick and choose, you can back just about any point you want, but that doesn't mean the text, as a whole, backs everything equally.
The bashing started with the author of the article who, by asking for donations, is nothing more than a hypocrite.
his other article are about having his own import business and self sufficiency as a virtue. All of which tie into the fire movement in some way but he's happy to write that crap in order to get eyeballs on his begging.
He's not the only only who can write critically though is he? Or do you get to be the judge of that?
As for adding to the discussion - what's to discuss? its a low brow, ill thought out, piece of twaddle. Discuss that.
-
As for adding to the discussion - what's to discuss? its a low brow, ill thought out, piece of twaddle. Discuss that.
I agree entirely.
The difference is that your statement there is attacking the article, not the author.
The authour is, in general, a twatwaffling crank wanker.
is an attack on the author.
[The article is] a low brow, ill thought out, piece of twaddle.
is an attack on the article.
-
As for adding to the discussion - what's to discuss? its a low brow, ill thought out, piece of twaddle. Discuss that.
I agree entirely.
The difference is that your statement there is attacking the article, not the author.
The authour is, in general, a twatwaffling crank wanker.
is an attack on the author.
[The article is] a low brow, ill thought out, piece of twaddle.
is an attack on the article.
I actually put up a complete counter point to the article which you skipped right on by and went straight to twatwaffle and stumphumper.
Please feel free to comment on that as well if you like.
Personally I don't think this article deserves any oxygen at all - or the author.
4 article in 3 years. I learn more in "The Top Is In" thread each week.
-
@UnleashHell and I are just having a bit of a jape with each other w.r.t. britishisms. No need to be concerned.
-
As for adding to the discussion - what's to discuss? its a low brow, ill thought out, piece of twaddle. Discuss that.
I agree entirely.
The difference is that your statement there is attacking the article, not the author.
The authour is, in general, a twatwaffling crank wanker.
is an attack on the author.
[The article is] a low brow, ill thought out, piece of twaddle.
is an attack on the article.
Hey-o, though, mate. If you’re gonna quote, make sure to keep my name in there.
-
EconDiva = Jeffry Haver????
Just a thought.
Anyway just the thoughts from a filthy pagan. I don't think you should be able to quote from the bible in order to beg unless you are using Aramaic.
Splitter!
-
EconDiva = Jeffry Haver????
Haha, no...although that would make for an interesting thread if I was and ended up being "outed".
Poster @ericrugiero pretty much summarizes how I feel about the article, however, I am interested in continuing to hear others' thoughts/opinions as this is a very interesting topic to me. Make no mistake that filthy pagan's opinions are welcome as all are (just wanting to keep the overall tone of the thread respectful is all).
-
EconDiva = Jeffry Haver????
Just a thought.
Anyway just the thoughts from a filthy pagan. I don't think you should be able to quote from the bible in order to beg unless you are using Aramaic.
Splitter!
The Old TEstament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Greek.
-
Someone has the complete wrong idea of what the FIRE movement is.
I've actually been kicking around alternative terms, because it seems the term FIRE has gotten... corrupted, at least. "Save a ton by being a jerk to everyone and retire to kick back and golf!" or such.
FINIC or FINIR - "Financially Independent - No Income Considerations" or "Financially Independent - No Income Requirements." Or just simplify and go with FI, because it means about the same. More of a focus on "When I don't have to earn a living directly, I can do that which I feel I ought to do, regardless of the salary."
I broadly disagree with the article, though I'm not going to write a full response - mostly because I've helped lead some courses on money and the Bible, and it is quite complex. Even just going through the 4 Gospels with what Jesus said directly covers a lot of ground, and the themes of money/wealth/resources/etc are woven through the rest of the Bible as well. And I don't have the time right now to really dive into it, since I still have a job...
The author touches on a few relevant passages, and I certainly agree about the love of money - but I disagree that the FIRE movement is purely about the love of money. Done right, IME, money becomes somewhat closer to air - it's available, and you automate stuff enough that it's just not much of a consideration. We're able to be quite generous as needs come up, and... I don't think through what it does with regards to a FIRE date or such. I've never calculated that. I like my job, I like being generous, our net worth is heading up at a decent enough rate, and at some point work will become optional, but I don't know exactly when or how, and if things change enough to alter that, well... OK. Doesn't really bother me one way or the other.
But there is an awful lot throughout the Bible about planning and preparing for the future as well - and at responsible investment and growth of money. The Parable of the Talents covers this, and that's before you get into Proverbs, Joseph, and plenty of other discussion about wise planning for the future.
If you've condensed it into a short read, as the article author has, you've almost certainly picked your conclusion and cherry picked verses to support it, which is exactly what this article did.
I generally agree with Syonyk and especially the last bit.
I've also been considering what to do with FI once we reach it lately. We're getting very close or possibly even there now depending on how I run the numbers. DW likes her work and feels like she is doing "what she feels she ought to", which leaves the question of what do I do it it's not "earn money"...
One trend I have noticed in articles (and personal discussions) along these lines: The author's opinion is usually held by someone who loves their work. People who chose to pursue their passion AND succeed in making a living at it seem to forget that there are concrete finishers in the world... It's important work, I have enough experience with to really appreciate, and here at least it pays pretty well. However, I would strongly advise against telling anyone who's just spent 12 hours finishing a pad that they should give 50% to charity... I'd have to be good friends with them to suggest they save 50% to live on when they physically can't do the work anymore.
-
Woof.
I mean, if one assumes that FI/RE exists solely so that the early-retiree can lounge around and not be productive, sure - that's not such a great look if they also consider themselves a Christian.
But of course it entirely misses the point. The author clearly did not look past the assumption that anyone on the path to FI/RE is greedy, and that they don't want to contribute anything to society. It's as if anyone who decides living to work isn't for them is a fat, lazy sluggard. What is working to live anyway?
Look at the man, MMM, himself. Sure, he's not a Christian (or I assume as much) but that hasn't stopped him living his life helping others around him, directing his funds toward causes he believes in, and just generally not being a burden to the rest of society.
Doesn't keeping one's house in order ensure that welfare resources are going to be spent on those who need them? And healthcare, too?
It does.
"Keeping one's house in order" is analogous to a citizen's performance of their half of the social contract which is to live their lives and manage their affairs so as not to impose burdens on society at large. This performance of the social contract mandates payment of taxes due which does "ensure that welfare resources are going to be spent on those who need them." As a Randian atheist (redundant) this performance suffices for me which I concede some will find *facile given this thread's tenor of the Christian imperative "to give."
*"No man should be a judge in his own cause."
After all - it would seem (anecdotally) that people around here mostly give a shit about their health.
Or what about creating economic opportunities for those who would replace the outgoing corporate participant? If an early retiree decides to finally call it quits, in most situations that opens a door at a lower level, earlier, for someone else to improve their own station. And that domino effect keeps going down the economic food chain.
And there is also the blatant blanket assumption by the author that a Christian early retiree wouldn't even consider donating more time to the Church, or to helping the poor, or the sick, or the elderly.
Blegh.
-
Article is facile and simplistic, and the author needs some work on reading comprehension and logical reasoning. First, the "Bible" isn't one single, consistent behemoth; it is a series of writings over time from a group of people that was selected and codified by another group of people hundreds of years later. Its writers are human, and so whatever they write is going to be interpreted through a very human lens. In short: they are the classic fallible narrators.
Second: the examples given do not support the conclusion, either because of basic reading comprehension issues or question-begging analysis. Example: the Bible does not say money is the root of all evil; it says love of money is. OK. So the author takes this and leaps to, ergo, FIRE adherents are going down the wrong path by amassing money. But that conclusion is based on the assumption that saving for the future = "love of money." That is a false equivalency.* I would argue that people focused on FIRE actually have less "love" of money than the normal consumerist, because for them, money is simply a tool -- it is a way to cut the shackles that require them to devote so much life-energy to supporting their everyday existence, and to instead use that time for more important goals. In the FIRE world, money is not an end in and of itself, nor is it a way to buy fancy things to flaunt social status. FIRE is the opposite of Scrooge McDuck rolling around in his giant pile of cash.
Similarly, the passage about the guy building bigger barns doesn't say it's a bad idea to stash away grain to protect against future lean years -- it says don't grab all you can and use it to spend the rest of your life partying and living high on the hog. IOW, the problem isn't with the stashing, it is with the purpose that stashing is serving.
Finally: the article is built on a strawman that becomes clear only at the end: the comparison is between a FIRE adherent and someone who works just as hard and spends just as little but decides to give away the difference instead of save it. Now, that in and of itself is a questionable moral analysis, as it seriously undervalues the benefit of doing your best to avoid being a burden on society. But the reality is that 99.99% of FIRE opponents are not going to be the next Mother Theresa. They are going to take that extra money and spend it on more personal consumption -- bigger houses, newer cars, nicer clothes, fancier vacations, you name it. That's the "fair" comparison. Yes, we all should give more than we do and think more of others. But between someone who is putting money away for the future vs. someone who is spending the exact same amount of money on living a more lavish lifestyle now, which do you think those biblical authors would approve of more?
I would argue that FIRE is inherently more "Christian" in values than our standard consumer culture. Because FIRE demands that we focus intensively on what is enough. Instead of chasing more/better/bigger/greater, we each have to think very hard about what matters to us and what doesn't, and to evaluate how little we can actually live on intead of how much more we can afford to buy. And the result is that FIRE adherents in fact need to chase less wealth, leave a smaller consumption footprint, and spend less time shackled to the pursuit of the almighty dollar -- leaving far more time to devote to more meaningful pursuits. At heart, it is anti-greed, anti-selfishness, anti-grabiness.
One of the songs that we sing at Passover is "Dayenu."** Dayenu basically means "it would have been enough," and the song is about how if God had only done X, it would have been enough, but God then went on and did Y too. The concept of dayenu has really resonated with me, because it required me to realize how much of what we have been given is completely excessive and far more than we actually need to be happy and safe. Gee, sounds a little like FIRE, eh?
Look, we can all do better (which, btw, strikes me as the fundamental point of the Bible). We can be less selfish. We can give more. We can put more time and energy into figuring out what our fellow humans need. We can focus more on service -- on giving rather than taking. That's one of the reasons I do not jump on people here who choose to continue to tithe instead of following the more standard save now/give later approach. And yes, FIRE can be corrupted into something that is mean and stingy and selfish -- just like "prosperity gospel" can be corrupted into a means to justify a selfish, lavish, consumerist lifestyle. But if you want to look at how Jesus lived and the words that are attributed directly to him, well, is that closer to Pete's daily life and "preachings," or Jerry Falwell Jr's $100M net worth and $1M/yr (former) salary?
*Plus Paul's a giant flaming asshole. IMO.
**I'm Christian, DH is Jewish, so I have a little bit of knowledge of both but do not claim to be an expert in either.
-
Similarly, the passage about the guy building bigger barns doesn't say it's a bad idea to stash away grain to protect against future lean years -- it says don't grab all you can and use it to spend the rest of your life partying and living high on the hog. IOW, the problem isn't with the stashing, it is with the purpose that stashing is serving.
^You hit the nail on the head here with the above.
-
I see someone has added a link from the article to this forum thread. I wonder how long it will stay up.
-
I don't think that article adds much to the universe of thought on personal finances.
He did miss a larger moral question which has always struck me about FIRE, and has been mentioned here on this forum in various threads. FIRE adherents may be fine consuming less, but our investments grow because the rest of the country is caught up in the consumer rat-race. Our path to financial freedom is paved with dollars spent on things we might consider unessential or immoral to spend our money on. Immoral may be a strong word, there, but not consistent with our own values. Investing in low-fee index funds, the tried and true FIRE strategy, profits from all sectors of society - oil and gas, fancy cars, McMansions, healthcare, etc. etc.
I'm more curious to hear how Christians (and other people of faith/moral conscious) grapple with that.
Disclaimer: I'm not Christian, but I am Jewish (practicing, reform).
-
Finally: the article is built on a strawman that becomes clear only at the end: the comparison is between a FIRE adherent and someone who works just as hard and spends just as little but decides to give away the difference instead of save it. Now, that in and of itself is a questionable moral analysis, as it seriously undervalues the benefit of doing your best to avoid being a burden on society. But the reality is that 99.99% of FIRE opponents are not going to be the next Mother Theresa. They are going to take that extra money and spend it on more personal consumption -- bigger houses, newer cars, nicer clothes, fancier vacations, you name it. That's the "fair" comparison. Yes, we all should give more than we do and think more of others. But between someone who is putting money away for the future vs. someone who is spending the exact same amount of money on living a more lavish lifestyle now, which do you think those biblical authors would approve of more?
I would argue that FIRE is inherently more "Christian" in values than our standard consumer culture. Because FIRE demands that we focus intensively on what is enough. Instead of chasing more/better/bigger/greater, we each have to think very hard about what matters to us and what doesn't, and to evaluate how little we can actually live on intead of how much more we can afford to buy. And the result is that FIRE adherents in fact need to chase less wealth, leave a smaller consumption footprint, and spend less time shackled to the pursuit of the almighty dollar -- leaving far more time to devote to more meaningful pursuits. At heart, it is anti-greed, anti-selfishness, anti-grabiness.
This^^^ The author rather shockingly ignores the status quo of churches filled with people worshiping the pleasures and comforts of consumerism.* Not that pleasure or comfort is bad per se, but rather it's dangerous because these easily become our central focus and this is an inherently self-centered impulse opposed to the other-centered cruciform life followers of Christ are called to live.
So yeah, jumping from one hedonic treadmill (consumerism) to a different type of hedonic treadmill (what many people assume FIRE is all about) doesn't accomplish anything. However, getting off the hedonic treadmill to focus on loving/serving others is *very* Christ-like.
*Church leadership is also largely complicit in ignoring this. More and more I've come to see the decline of the church in the West in terms of the vine being pruned of branches that don't bear fruit.
-
EconDiva = Jeffry Haver????
Just a thought.
Anyway just the thoughts from a filthy pagan. I don't think you should be able to quote from the bible in order to beg unless you are using Aramaic.
Splitter!
The Old TEstament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Greek.
Apart from the bits in Aramaic.
-
I don't think that article adds much to the universe of thought on personal finances.
He did miss a larger moral question which has always struck me about FIRE, and has been mentioned here on this forum in various threads. FIRE adherents may be fine consuming less, but our investments grow because the rest of the country is caught up in the consumer rat-race. Our path to financial freedom is paved with dollars spent on things we might consider unessential or immoral to spend our money on. Immoral may be a strong word, there, but not consistent with our own values. Investing in low-fee index funds, the tried and true FIRE strategy, profits from all sectors of society - oil and gas, fancy cars, McMansions, healthcare, etc. etc.
I'm more curious to hear how Christians (and other people of faith/moral conscious) grapple with that.
Disclaimer: I'm not Christian, but I am Jewish (practicing, reform).
Ex-Christian here, but as mentioned above, the Bible is self-contradictory in many cases. Let me bring up the parable of the talents (a talent is a unit of silver, and very valuable). Emphasis mine:
14 “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants[a] and entrusted to them his property. 15 To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. 17 So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here, I have made five talents more.’ 21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant.[c] You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here, I have made two talents more.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
Christians interpret the passage in various ways and I don't want to trivialize anyone's interpretation, but it is clear Jesus is telling us to take what we are given and make more of it. So a reasonable interpretation is that we are supposed to invest and make more of what we have.
-
EconDiva = Jeffry Haver????
Just a thought.
Anyway just the thoughts from a filthy pagan. I don't think you should be able to quote from the bible in order to beg unless you are using Aramaic.
Splitter!
The Old TEstament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Greek.
Apart from the bits in Aramaic.
The nonexistent ones. Okay.
-
From https://www.britannica.com/topic/Aramaic-language (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Aramaic-language), so we can avoid further he-said/she-said kinds of arguments...
"Certain portions of the Bible—i.e., the books of Daniel and Ezra—are written in Aramaic, as are the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. Among the Jews, Aramaic was used by the common people, while Hebrew remained the language of religion and government and of the upper class."
-
I also think the author cherrypicked passages to support his opinion. I do agree with his opinion that we should tend towards radical generosity. I think that radical generosity can include becoming FIRE and then generously giving our prime years, time, and skills to further His kingdom. We don't have to just give money, and in fact, I believe that God wants us to give all of ourselves to Him (and not just our money).
Personally, I think we are put on earth to serve and glorify God. Being rich or not rich is irrelevant. If we are blessed with wealth and through that process we learn to draw closer to God and become more Christ-like, that's all that matters. If we are blessed with poverty and through that process we learn to draw closer to God and become more Christ-like, that's all that matters.
-
It's a large enough book that if you pick and choose, you can back just about any point you want, but that doesn't mean the text, as a whole, backs everything equally.
Agreed. And since the author has chosen to do just that, despite calling himself a Christian, it seems that he's not looking for serious dialogue, but actually writing a clickbait article. For profit, as we can see by his shill at the end. Pretty disgusting.
When I read it just now, there wasn't a shill at the end. Wonder if he deleted that since this morning.
His argument was unconvincing. I've read a lot of poorly constructed attempts to blacken fire, and realize now that they all share in common one thread: FIRE people are bad people. They are lazy or greedy or selfish or unmotivated (about their job), and they are selfish, obsessive and arrogant. They are miserly and nerotic. They wear clothes found on dumpsters. They are bad neighbors (always home, not working!), bad citizens (don't pay taxes! don't support the economy! don't contribute!), and now bad Christians.
Given his foray into Chinese import business and private label venture, he seems quite interested in making money, and not, it appears to this reader, for the glory of God.
I think he's jealous.
-
When I read it just now, there wasn't a shill at the end. Wonder if he deleted that since this morning.
It was there earlier this evening.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE
-
As a Christian who has thought a lot about this over the past few years, I have some thoughts.
First, I've spent years contemplating traditional retirement from a Christian worldview. Retirement is a new idea, historically. The thought humans would have a pension or 401K or social security to live from because they are too old to contribute traditional labor is a radical change. My grandparents lived under the traditional model. No working, not really doing much besides watching TV and checking in on the grandkids at Christmas. This is far and away against the call of Christians. Even those who are disabled or unable to work are asked to do SOMETHING. Scripture is clear, folks who can't take care of themselves should be taken care of by the church and should be working for the church in prayer and in any other way they can - mostly through relationships. So if retirement is anything, it's not the idea of unplugging from life.
Second, I've thought a lot about what it means to be rich and I've concluded that Americans all universally fall into the category of being rich. Anyone earning 40K+/year is in the top 10% of richest people in the world! This idea that America's middle class is somehow poor is a joke. Especially when you add the income inflation provided by debt, even folks making 40K a year can easily spend as if they make double that (house, car, eating out, etc)! If the scripture says anything about the wealthy, it says it to all Americans. There is no special category of those who aggressively save/invest for retirement. They aren't a unique category compared to those who save slowly for retirement or who stumble into great wealth suddenly. If anything, I think the rampant use of debt to increase our spending far beyond our income is closer to the greed warned about in Scripture [though that is far outside the scope of this response].
Third, and I think most importantly, the Christian life is all about what we do in light of two truths:
1. Jesus Christ traded his perfect life for our deserved death; anyone who believes in him has been cleansed of all their sins and is free.
2. Christians are further adopted into God's family and given an inheritance to live for, the new Heavens and new Earth - a world ruled directly by God.
These truths define everything about how the Christian must live, which begs a very big question: what do I do between my salvation and my inheritance? The Bible is not shy answering this question. We are to work for the good of God and the world. We are to serve well with whatever means God gives us. We are to treat everyone as our equal. We are to stand firm in the truth revealed. We are to serve those who are suffering. We are to love our enemies. We are to live as citizens of that future world.
I don't see anything in the FI/RE movement impacting this life; if anything, working towards financial independence removes some of the temptations of greed and frees the Christian to live a life in full service to God. That will look very different in different places and for different people. My wife does not work due to health issues (she can't do anything physically or mentally taxing for more than a few hours). We have no children. I earn a high income. She has been "retired" for over two years now. What does she do with the time? She reaches out to others in the church and in the community with health issues and encourages them and helps them deal with the way they experience the world. She works with people who are depressed to get out and live despite their overwhelming sense of meaninglessness. She uses the energy she has to encourage others on places like Reddit and Instagram. When COVID wasn't an issue, she taught Sunday School for 8-10 year-olds since she has the time to study and prepare and is very effective teaching to children.
Does she produce an income? No. Not at all. Does she continue to fully serve God and live for her future hope? Yes. 100% yes.
Fourth, and finally, there are many, many rich folks in Scripture used to serve God's people. The books of Luke and Acts where funded by a rich Roman. In the early church, it was the rich family's houses where the church would gather together for a meal and preaching since it was the only place that could host everyone. The rich were instrumental in pivoting society away from hundreds of years of persecution of Christians. And, as there are fears of society turning that persecutions back on in the western world, it is the rich who will be in the best position to establish safe houses and home churches where Christians can meet in safety.
Should Christians be abundant givers? Yes. 100% yes. But that has nothing to do with FI/RE.
Should Christians be weary of greedy living? Yes, but debt should be a bigger concern there.
If anything, the FI/RE movement frees Christians to live a life in full service to God and to provide more and better giving of every resource available to us: money, time, and relationships.
-
And, as there are fears of society turning that persecutions back on in the western world, it is the rich who will be in the best position to establish safe houses and home churches where Christians can meet in safety.
There's God's plenty of unfounded fears about that here in the USA. The reality is the other way around in our country, it's the politically active right-wing Christians who are militantly fighting to take away other's rights -- all the while complaining about how they are being oppressed.
-
As a former believer, it's now clear to me that Christianity is flawed in numerous ways (as are all religions).
The sole purpose of the bible is subjugation.
Becoming financially independent is a completely rational aspiration - don't let a book of fairytales and contradictions convince you otherwise.
-
As a former believer, it's now clear to me that Christianity is flawed in numerous ways (as are all religions).
The sole purpose of the bible is subjugation.
Becoming financially independent is a completely rational aspiration - don't let a book of fairytales and contradictions convince you otherwise.
I attended Catholic grammar school for 8 years.
I was a precocious second-grader and so, it was then that I became an atheist.
While I don't think "The sole purpose of the bible is subjugation," as a rationalist and a literalist I do think belief in some of what's written in the Bible necessitates surrendering one's faculty of reason.
That billions of people believe the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ actually occurred will puzzle me to the day I die.
OTOH, I commend some of Christ's teaching as guidance for living a good life and I am committed to steadfast, categorical support of every person's free exercise of their religion.
-
That's such a pile of hogwash.
Seriously. Talk about twisting meaning to make a stupid point.
It's more Christian to stay in a job you don't enjoy so that you can pay more of your earned money for other people to do meaningful work, but not you cubicle monkey, you stay put and keep being part of the very un-christian corporate machine.
What the actual fuck is that???
-
This is disappointing because it's an interesting topic, but the article is terrible. As a Christian I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about "storing up goods" as it relates to a savings account, 401(k), etc. Should we not be doing those things? Don't most Americans have less than $1k in the bank? That is...not good.
When I was in college, I went with my church on a service trip to Appalachia. Loved it. Could have spent a year there. Would love to go back and work in workforce development in some distressed rural area. That is, in fact, why I follow a FIRE path, in order to someday be able to take my foot off the gas and go do this kind of hands-on work without living paycheck to paycheck myself.
Yes, I could donate 50% of my income to charity to allow other people to do those things, work in those roles. What if I feel called to do that work myself?
Funnily enough, after posturing so much about Christianity and helping the poor, he has another article suggesting people invest in Chinese manufacturing. I'm sure those working conditions are fantastic.
-
How can a person help others if they can't take care of themselves first?
Get one's self established, manage income and expenses so we can live sustainable lives - even retire early/late/at all. Then give time and knowledge as freely as possible. Sounds like an ideal life and purpose to me.
if we want to be critical of someone perhaps constructive criticism of celebrity style opulence would be reasonable. Why would a person need billions of dollars leading to a plethora of material possessions and opulence?
-
How can a person help others if they can't take care of themselves first?
Get one's self established, manage income and expenses so we can live sustainable lives - even retire early/late/at all. Then give time and knowledge as freely as possible. Sounds like an ideal life and purpose to me.
if we want to be critical of someone perhaps constructive criticism of celebrity style opulence would be reasonable. Why would a person need billions of dollars leading to a plethora of material possessions and opulence?
You mean like "Christian" preachers Joel Osteen or Franklin Graham or Jim Bakker or a veritable host of others of their ilk?
-
As a former believer, it's now clear to me that Christianity is flawed in numerous ways (as are all religions).
The sole purpose of the bible is subjugation.
Religion and faith are basically opposites, as religion is always works based (requires your actions and/or your money to prove you're good enough), but the New Testament makes it clear that even from the early days of the Church, this was a struggle among the teachers of Christ because everyone wanted to have some sort of works based salvation, but it simply doesn't work that way. The bible cannot be used (properly) for subjugation because your salvation is not works based. Yet here we are in the 21st century and nearly every major religion makes it clear you need to pay your temple tax, or tithe in order to prove you're doing good works. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out 90% of those who call themselves Christians are just doing works and not even saved at all, even the majority of priests and preachers who put money and power above actually preaching salvation by faith.
So I understand your frustrations. It's extremely frustrating for followers of Christ who have actually read the bible and know that all who preach on salvation through being a good enough person, paying your tithes, or anything else are nothing but false teachers giving a false impression of what it even means to follow Jesus.
-
As a former believer, it's now clear to me that Christianity is flawed in numerous ways (as are all religions).
The sole purpose of the bible is subjugation.
...
So I understand your frustrations. It's extremely frustrating for followers of Christ who have actually read the bible and know that all who preach on salvation through being a good enough person, paying your tithes, or anything else are nothing but false teachers giving a false impression of what it even means to follow Jesus.
It doesn't help that the largest politically active "Christian" denomination in the US was explicitly founded to defend White Supremacy and Black Enslavement. I'm pretty sure some of Christ's message got pretty corrupted from that.
-
EconDiva = Jeffry Haver????
Just a thought.
Anyway just the thoughts from a filthy pagan. I don't think you should be able to quote from the bible in order to beg unless you are using Aramaic.
Splitter!
The Old TEstament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Greek.
It is actually quite a bit more complicated than that! There are Greek and Hebrew translations of the Hebrew Scriptures stretching back far enough that broad swaths of the Jewish people were using them each as the canon was being developed. It’s pretty fascinating actually learning about transmission through languages in the diaspora. And as for the “new” testament, it is written in a mix of Greek and Aramaic, depending upon the book in question.
-
Sure, pursuing wealth for the sake of accumulating and hoarding and then doing nothing with it will probably make you miserable. I struggle with this myself. I’ve been FI and semi-RE I guess for the past 5 years and I’ve struggled to find meaning and purpose. I don’t think wanting to save copious amounts of money is the problem though. I think the problem is my own outlook on life and the general meaningless of it from my perspective. I’ve never been super religious despite growing up in the rural south as a Christian.
I think this boils down to capitalism vs communism actually and is just using religion as a justification. Or maybe it’s just a stab at capitalism in general because without it there would be no such thing as “FIRE”. There’s nothing wrong with accumulating resources and becoming more productive/efficient as long as those resources are being put to good use. Everyone is their own little company and buying yourself time is just a form of “investing back into the company” so that you can pursue greater things. I do think the notion that there are people under 30 who accumulate 25x expenses and just do nothing for the rest of their life is a myth. There’s nothing wrong with not pursuing wealth and innovation and staying at a moderate level of wealth while helping people in small ways, but the argument can be made that we also need people like Bill Gates who not only contributed great things (debatable I guess) to the world but has then used his wealth to try and lift the poorest people in the world out of extreme poverty.
I also think in general that the desire for wealth benefits everyone eventually because innovation leads to productivity/efficiency which leads to better lives for everyone. In order to become super wealthy you have to serve others by making things that people want. Your level of wealth is simply the result of the impact you’ve made on the world. Every “contribution” can be debated on whether it was good or bad but ultimately the intention is to make or do things that other people find valuable.
The truth is that everyone will become FIRE or close to it eventually. AI/UBI will make more and more people “FIRE”. People pursuing it now are just ahead of the curve I guess.
-
Your level of wealth is simply the result of the impact you’ve made on the world.
Really?
Lots of people have had a major impact on the world, didn't have money and died poor.
1. Karl Marx
2. Joan of Arc
3. A host of soldiers in WWII who died young while winning battles, making damn near nothing while they did it, who saved the world from the Nazis.
4. Rosa Parks
You seem to have internalized a lot of the mythology of capitalism. Maybe that's why things seem meaningless.
-
Sure, pursuing wealth for the sake of accumulating and hoarding and then doing nothing with it will probably make you miserable. I struggle with this myself. I’ve been FI and semi-RE I guess for the past 5 years and I’ve struggled to find meaning and purpose. I don’t think wanting to save copious amounts of money is the problem though. I think the problem is my own outlook on life and the general meaningless of it from my perspective. I’ve never been super religious despite growing up in the rural south as a Christian.
Isn't it wonderful, to have the luxury of life being meaningless and more leisure hours than you know what to do with? If you grew up in a poorer country or >99% of human history, you wouldn't have the time to stop and think about philosophy (for good or bad, i.e. no time to extol life's pleasantries or wallow in self-pity). You would have fields to sow/harvest or animals to hunt, children to raise, food to process/store/cook, sewing, cleaning, and water to collect. We as a modern society still have these tasks but they pale in comparison to the time suck they used to be.
I'm a ways from FI but still can't be grateful enough for the modern amenities, technology, and medicine and still copious amount of leisure time afforded to me for relatively (to any point in history) little effort.
I look up at the stars and think how fatuous my individual life is on a grand scale and I feel refreshed to largely do as I please and try and make the most of life's journey and leave the world a little better than when I entered it.
-
The trouble with any religious text, or any text at all, if used as a basis for argumentation, is that one can twist and interpret the text to suit one's own priorities. We see this to some degree with the law, where liberal jurists and conservative ones see the same law to mean different things, coincidentally always tending to mean whatever suits the preferred side's ideological purpose.
In the law, legislators try to write things as unambiguously as possible to prevent the courts from having too much flexibility in overriding their intent. But the authors of religious texts from thousands of years ago never anticipated all the different ways their words might be used. So religion has this same issue on steroids.
For this particular argument, you can go to the New Testament to find it being as difficult as a camel passing through the eye of a needle for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Or you can go to the parable of the talents to see Jesus using metaphors of wealth and investing as exemplars of what his disciples ought to do, implicitly condoning wealth itself. You can look to the old testament to find David (a king, and therefore a wealthy man) being beloved of god, or Job rewarded for his long-suffering with riches. But you can also see the destitute prophet Noah gaining the Lord's favor as he learns about how to follow.
Depending on where you fall on the issue of wealth personally, you can write an article like this, or you can be tax-cutting Republican politician who wants to make everything better for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. Similarly, members of this board will probably tend to disagree with this interpretation, simply because it's not in our self-interest to agree with it. But someone who is poor or was already inclined to pursue lean-fire might agree with this, since it costs them nothing to do so.
The real takeaway is that motivated reasoning is strong and human rationality isn't all it's cracked up to be. I don't mean to take away from people's enjoyment of reading or debating the article. I just want to point out that basing arguments off of interpretations of texts is likely to sound convincing only to those who already agree.
-
The trouble with any religious text, or any text at all, if used as a basis for argumentation, is that one can twist and interpret the text to suit one's own priorities.
...
Depending on where you fall on the issue of wealth personally, you can write an article like this, or you can be tax-cutting Republican politician who wants to make everything better for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. Similarly, members of this board will probably tend to disagree with this interpretation, simply because it's not in our self-interest to agree with it. But someone who is poor or was already inclined to pursue lean-fire might agree with this, since it costs them nothing to do so.
The real takeaway is that motivated reasoning is strong and human rationality isn't all it's cracked up to be. I don't mean to take away from people's enjoyment of reading or debating the article. I just want to point out that basing arguments off of interpretations of texts is likely to sound convincing only to those who already agree.
You raise very good points!
I remember last fall when an historical re-enactor I interacted with pulled out a ten Bible verses to justify why white supremacy and black enslavement in the US was right and proper with God.
I wasn't nice about it. Not even a teeny bit nice. It's a disgusting belief and no one holding it should feel liked or respected by decent people.
I don't even care if he's right because any God who would think that's a good idea is a God that needs to be spit on, not worshiped.
-
The trouble with any religious text, or any text at all, if used as a basis for argumentation, is that one can twist and interpret the text to suit one's own priorities.
...
Depending on where you fall on the issue of wealth personally, you can write an article like this, or you can be tax-cutting Republican politician who wants to make everything better for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. Similarly, members of this board will probably tend to disagree with this interpretation, simply because it's not in our self-interest to agree with it. But someone who is poor or was already inclined to pursue lean-fire might agree with this, since it costs them nothing to do so.
The real takeaway is that motivated reasoning is strong and human rationality isn't all it's cracked up to be. I don't mean to take away from people's enjoyment of reading or debating the article. I just want to point out that basing arguments off of interpretations of texts is likely to sound convincing only to those who already agree.
You raise very good points!
I remember last fall when an historical re-enactor I interacted with pulled out a ten Bible verses to justify why white supremacy and black enslavement in the US was right and proper with God.
I wasn't nice about it. Not even a teeny bit nice. It's a disgusting belief and no one holding it should feel liked or respected by decent people.
I don't even care if he's right because any God who would think that's a good idea is a God that needs to be spit on, not worshiped.
Every time someone tries to convince me that Trump has jackshit to do with their vision of God.
-
Sure, pursuing wealth for the sake of accumulating and hoarding and then doing nothing with it will probably make you miserable. I struggle with this myself. I’ve been FI and semi-RE I guess for the past 5 years and I’ve struggled to find meaning and purpose. I don’t think wanting to save copious amounts of money is the problem though. I think the problem is my own outlook on life and the general meaningless of it from my perspective. I’ve never been super religious despite growing up in the rural south as a Christian.
Isn't it wonderful, to have the luxury of life being meaningless and more leisure hours than you know what to do with? If you grew up in a poorer country or >99% of human history, you wouldn't have the time to stop and think about philosophy (for good or bad, i.e. no time to extol life's pleasantries or wallow in self-pity). You would have fields to sow/harvest or animals to hunt, children to raise, food to process/store/cook, sewing, cleaning, and water to collect. We as a modern society still have these tasks but they pale in comparison to the time suck they used to be.
I'm a ways from FI but still can't be grateful enough for the modern amenities, technology, and medicine and still copious amount of leisure time afforded to me for relatively (to any point in history) little effort.
I look up at the stars and think how fatuous my individual life is on a grand scale and I feel refreshed to largely do as I please and try and make the most of life's journey and leave the world a little better than when I entered it.
It’s either wonderful or hell. For me it tends to be in between most of the time.
I think a lot of those people are perfectly content in their own way because they don’t have time to contemplate purpose...they’re forced into it.
Anyway all I’m really trying to say is I think you can be capitalist, make all the monies, and also improve others lives and give back along the way. You don’t have to stay poor just because some religious text insinuates you should.
-
The trouble with any religious text, or any text at all, if used as a basis for argumentation, is that one can twist and interpret the text to suit one's own priorities.
...
Depending on where you fall on the issue of wealth personally, you can write an article like this, or you can be tax-cutting Republican politician who wants to make everything better for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. Similarly, members of this board will probably tend to disagree with this interpretation, simply because it's not in our self-interest to agree with it. But someone who is poor or was already inclined to pursue lean-fire might agree with this, since it costs them nothing to do so.
The real takeaway is that motivated reasoning is strong and human rationality isn't all it's cracked up to be. I don't mean to take away from people's enjoyment of reading or debating the article. I just want to point out that basing arguments off of interpretations of texts is likely to sound convincing only to those who already agree.
You raise very good points!
I remember last fall when an historical re-enactor I interacted with pulled out a ten Bible verses to justify why white supremacy and black enslavement in the US was right and proper with God.
I wasn't nice about it. Not even a teeny bit nice. It's a disgusting belief and no one holding it should feel liked or respected by decent people.
I don't even care if he's right because any God who would think that's a good idea is a God that needs to be spit on, not worshiped.
He is not right. If he takes verses out of context maybe he could try to make an argument but he would be WAY off base. Good job calling him on it.
-
The trouble with any religious text, or any text at all, if used as a basis for argumentation, is that one can twist and interpret the text to suit one's own priorities.
...
Depending on where you fall on the issue of wealth personally, you can write an article like this, or you can be tax-cutting Republican politician who wants to make everything better for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. Similarly, members of this board will probably tend to disagree with this interpretation, simply because it's not in our self-interest to agree with it. But someone who is poor or was already inclined to pursue lean-fire might agree with this, since it costs them nothing to do so.
The real takeaway is that motivated reasoning is strong and human rationality isn't all it's cracked up to be. I don't mean to take away from people's enjoyment of reading or debating the article. I just want to point out that basing arguments off of interpretations of texts is likely to sound convincing only to those who already agree.
You raise very good points!
I remember last fall when an historical re-enactor I interacted with pulled out a ten Bible verses to justify why white supremacy and black enslavement in the US was right and proper with God.
I wasn't nice about it. Not even a teeny bit nice. It's a disgusting belief and no one holding it should feel liked or respected by decent people.
I don't even care if he's right because any God who would think that's a good idea is a God that needs to be spit on, not worshiped.
He is not right. If he takes verses out of context maybe he could try to make an argument but he would be WAY off base. Good job calling him on it.
Oh come on, it's like you didn't even bother to read what Obstinate said.
The whole reason we have a "Southern Baptist" denomination in the US instead of just the one unified "Baptist" denomination is because the "Southern" part split off round about the Civil War time because they believed the Bible justified slavery, and they quoted from it extensively to prove their point. Again, because it bears repeating; and is true whether we're talking about racism or money:
The trouble with any religious text, or any text at all, if used as a basis for argumentation, is that one can twist and interpret the text to suit one's own priorities.
-
I had a big post typed up for this, but I realized I needed to revisit that passage more, first.
Basically, one interpretation I've heard was that richness was considered a sign that a person was going to heaven, so when Jesus says it's impossible for the rich to enter heaven, the disciples kind of freak out. "Who then can be saved?" After all, if they thought the rich were getting it, but it turns out the rich aren't, was everybody else hosed? And that's when Jesus says that all things are possible through God.
Anyway, will need to look more at this again before trying to sling a big post together :D
-
Sure, pursuing wealth for the sake of accumulating and hoarding and then doing nothing with it will probably make you miserable. I struggle with this myself. I’ve been FI and semi-RE I guess for the past 5 years and I’ve struggled to find meaning and purpose. I don’t think wanting to save copious amounts of money is the problem though. I think the problem is my own outlook on life and the general meaningless of it from my perspective. I’ve never been super religious despite growing up in the rural south as a Christian.
Isn't it wonderful, to have the luxury of life being meaningless and more leisure hours than you know what to do with? If you grew up in a poorer country or >99% of human history, you wouldn't have the time to stop and think about philosophy (for good or bad, i.e. no time to extol life's pleasantries or wallow in self-pity). You would have fields to sow/harvest or animals to hunt, children to raise, food to process/store/cook, sewing, cleaning, and water to collect. We as a modern society still have these tasks but they pale in comparison to the time suck they used to be.
I'm a ways from FI but still can't be grateful enough for the modern amenities, technology, and medicine and still copious amount of leisure time afforded to me for relatively (to any point in history) little effort.
I look up at the stars and think how fatuous my individual life is on a grand scale and I feel refreshed to largely do as I please and try and make the most of life's journey and leave the world a little better than when I entered it.
It’s either wonderful or hell. For me it tends to be in between most of the time.
I think a lot of those people are perfectly content in their own way because they don’t have time to contemplate purpose...they’re forced into it.
Your life is meaningless on the cosmic scale but can be quite impactful to those around you. Quit trying to find purpose as some romantic ideal of a human who has accomplished so much for their species (outer circles) and focus on your inner circles. If they're empty, fill them! Or if you prefer Maslow's Hierarchy, your psychological needs aren't being tended to while you're toppling over the self-actualization part (either that, or perhaps there was an overestimate of personal potential?). Of the ~108 billion humans to have ever lived, if you looked at a tale of the tape mano-a-mano, I would impute that most would trade places with you in a heartbeat.
Find what makes you happy and then fill your life with a higher proportion of those activities/people. To loosely get back to this thread, I am not religious either but appreciate the many 'buckets' that can be filled as a result of religion. It's easy to see why it is such an important institution in so many people's lives. The FI/FIREd lifestyle can mean many different things. Some need certain types of structure more than others, human connection, belonging to groups, extroverted vs. introverted, caretaker, provider, hobbyist, traveler, side hustle, volunteering, degree of solitude, etc. Having an existential crisis about a lack of meaning seems like you're just bored!
-
The trouble with any religious text, or any text at all, if used as a basis for argumentation, is that one can twist and interpret the text to suit one's own priorities.
...
Depending on where you fall on the issue of wealth personally, you can write an article like this, or you can be tax-cutting Republican politician who wants to make everything better for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. Similarly, members of this board will probably tend to disagree with this interpretation, simply because it's not in our self-interest to agree with it. But someone who is poor or was already inclined to pursue lean-fire might agree with this, since it costs them nothing to do so.
The real takeaway is that motivated reasoning is strong and human rationality isn't all it's cracked up to be. I don't mean to take away from people's enjoyment of reading or debating the article. I just want to point out that basing arguments off of interpretations of texts is likely to sound convincing only to those who already agree.
You raise very good points!
I remember last fall when an historical re-enactor I interacted with pulled out a ten Bible verses to justify why white supremacy and black enslavement in the US was right and proper with God.
I wasn't nice about it. Not even a teeny bit nice. It's a disgusting belief and no one holding it should feel liked or respected by decent people.
I don't even care if he's right because any God who would think that's a good idea is a God that needs to be spit on, not worshiped.
He is not right. If he takes verses out of context maybe he could try to make an argument but he would be WAY off base. Good job calling him on it.
Oh come on, it's like you didn't even bother to read what Obstinate said.
The whole reason we have a "Southern Baptist" denomination in the US instead of just the one unified "Baptist" denomination is because the "Southern" part split off round about the Civil War time because they believed the Bible justified slavery, and they quoted from it extensively to prove their point. Again, because it bears repeating; and is true whether we're talking about racism or money:
The trouble with any religious text, or any text at all, if used as a basis for argumentation, is that one can twist and interpret the text to suit one's own priorities.
Yes, you can twist any text to your own priorities. Yes, people (including the Southern Baptists in the past) have done that.
SwordGuy did the right thing in confronting the person about his wrong beliefs. I'm making the point that the Bible doesn't actually justify slavery. You must twist the text to get that belief from the Bible.
-
The trouble with any religious text, or any text at all, if used as a basis for argumentation, is that one can twist and interpret the text to suit one's own priorities.
Yes, you can twist any text to your own priorities. Yes, people (including the Southern Baptists in the past) have done that.
SwordGuy did the right thing in confronting the person about his wrong beliefs. I'm making the point that the Bible doesn't actually justify slavery. You must twist the text to get that belief from the Bible.
I don't want to derail this whole thread, but I think you are obviously wrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery) to make such broad declarations. Just because you or I don't like what it says doesn't mean we can ignore it either.
Maybe if you wanted to claim the New Testament doesn't "justify" slavery then you'd have a leg to stand on but the whole Bible? The Old Testament very explicitly allows for slavery, and the difference between "allows" and "justifies" is a very thin one.
-
The trouble with any religious text, or any text at all, if used as a basis for argumentation, is that one can twist and interpret the text to suit one's own priorities.
...
Depending on where you fall on the issue of wealth personally, you can write an article like this, or you can be tax-cutting Republican politician who wants to make everything better for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. Similarly, members of this board will probably tend to disagree with this interpretation, simply because it's not in our self-interest to agree with it. But someone who is poor or was already inclined to pursue lean-fire might agree with this, since it costs them nothing to do so.
The real takeaway is that motivated reasoning is strong and human rationality isn't all it's cracked up to be. I don't mean to take away from people's enjoyment of reading or debating the article. I just want to point out that basing arguments off of interpretations of texts is likely to sound convincing only to those who already agree.
You raise very good points!
I remember last fall when an historical re-enactor I interacted with pulled out a ten Bible verses to justify why white supremacy and black enslavement in the US was right and proper with God.
I wasn't nice about it. Not even a teeny bit nice. It's a disgusting belief and no one holding it should feel liked or respected by decent people.
I don't even care if he's right because any God who would think that's a good idea is a God that needs to be spit on, not worshiped.
He is not right. If he takes verses out of context maybe he could try to make an argument but he would be WAY off base. Good job calling him on it.
Oh come on, it's like you didn't even bother to read what Obstinate said.
The whole reason we have a "Southern Baptist" denomination in the US instead of just the one unified "Baptist" denomination is because the "Southern" part split off round about the Civil War time because they believed the Bible justified slavery, and they quoted from it extensively to prove their point. Again, because it bears repeating; and is true whether we're talking about racism or money:
The trouble with any religious text, or any text at all, if used as a basis for argumentation, is that one can twist and interpret the text to suit one's own priorities.
I'll just quote a comment I made BEFORE Obstinant made his comment:
It doesn't help that the largest politically active "Christian" denomination in the US was explicitly founded to defend White Supremacy and Black Enslavement. I'm pretty sure some of Christ's message got pretty corrupted from that.
I'm well aware that people can corrupt the meaning of religious texts to justify what they want to do.
I'm also well aware that some religious texts have just plain evil stuff in them that should not be accepted.
Example:
God: Abraham, go kill your son, Isaac.
Abraham: Why?
God: Because I said so.
Abraham: Okey-dokey.
The correct answer was "Fuck you. People deserve to be treated better than that. Learn some fucking manners and morals if you want to be worshipped."
-
I'll just quote a comment I made BEFORE Obstinant made his comment:
It doesn't help that the largest politically active "Christian" denomination in the US was explicitly founded to defend White Supremacy and Black Enslavement. I'm pretty sure some of Christ's message got pretty corrupted from that.
I'm well aware that people can corrupt the meaning of religious texts to justify what they want to do.
I'm also well aware that some religious texts have just plain evil stuff in them that should not be accepted.
Example:
God: Abraham, go kill your son, Isaac.
Abraham: Why?
God: Because I said so.
Abraham: Okey-dokey.
The correct answer was "Fuck you. People deserve to be treated better than that. Learn some fucking manners and morals if you want to be worshipped."
For clarity I will point out that I was saying Eric didn't read what Obstinate said, not you. I agree with you.
-
Practicing Christian here. The thread did kind of go off the rails, but I wanted to go back to the original question.
The author's argument seems to be largely predicated on his definition of "rich", then is supported by truncating biblical quotes. Let me first ask any of the readers this question. A person earns $2m in their life time through labour, but spends it all within his working lifetime. Another person earns $1m in their working life, then enjoys another $1m through interest and dividends in his non working life time. Who is richer? That's a rhetorical question, not one I expect opinions on.
That all said, we were created to work the earth. I'm not entirely comfortable with the "Retire Early" part of FIRE, but that again, depends on the definition of retirement. From paid work, nothing wrong with that, but so far, I've really enjoyed my work, so I'm not even sure I want to give that up. From labouring to love our God and our neighbour? Even if I make it, I won't be buying a boat to sail the world on my own. Not to say I won't do it for a few weeks at a time for refreshment and to enjoy His creation, but I think that as a goal, it is not in alignment with God's instructions.
My favourite bible verse is from Ecclesiastes 5:18-20.
This is what I have observed to be good: that it is appropriate for a person to eat, to drink and to find satisfaction in their toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given them—for this is their lot. Moreover, when God gives someone wealth and possessions, and the ability to enjoy them, to accept their lot and be happy in their toil—this is a gift of God. They seldom reflect on the days of their life, because God keeps them occupied with gladness of heart.
It's been my favourite verse, because in the early days of my career, I really enjoyed my work, and I worked hard, got recognised, promoted, and rewarded, while my friends complained about work, about not having enough money, etc. I felt absolutely guilty that I had it so good, and my friends still seemed to be labouring under a Genesis 3 curse. That is, until a pastor pointed this verse out to me.
In conclusion for the part about the article, I don't feel that FIRE is antithetical to Christian beliefs, any more than money is antithetical to Christian beliefs. However, like money, it can become an idol, draw you away from purpose and meaning that God has directed us towards, and we need to be careful of it.
Back to the derailing, one other observation I wanted to make, was that it's curious what people expect from the bible. The accusation is often leveled that "The bible is just fairytales", and yet, when the dirty, gritty reality of the time is documented, it supposedly shows how evil God is? If you were writing fairytales, wouldn't you make God entirely "nice", rather than just "good"? Wouldn't you make the chosen people always victorious? But the old testament is a repeated cycle of broken relationship. A cycle of people committing evil, God's punishment (which is often read as "evil", because either God says he'll allow or send an evil nation to attack themBut then safety and protection was a promise conditional on all the terms of the covenant, which the Israelites were not upholding), followed by God's forgiveness and restoration of relationship with his people.
In many cases, when you dig down into the oft quoted passages to prove God supports something we innately feel is unjust or unloving, you find they are either concessions, or documenting events, not instructions or commands. A clear cut example is divorce. People cite how unfair it was that women could just be tossed out on a whim in biblical times. Well, yes, sort of. They could be and were anyway. The divorce rules were actually to regulate divorces, allow a non-violent end to a marriage, and allow the woman to remarry. In Matthew 19:8, this is clarified:
Jesus said, “Moses provided for divorce as a concession to your hard heartedness, but it is not part of God’s original plan. I’m holding you to the original plan, and holding you liable for adultery if you divorce your faithful wife and then marry someone else. I make an exception in cases where the spouse has committed adultery.”
It is more difficult to show with other topics like slavery, because the contemporary context was not captured nearly so clearly, but slavery was prevalent at the time, and the laws in the bible were actually to limit the harm that could be done. For starters, slaves could not be kept for more than 7 years. The most common form of slavery was debt slavery, where if you owed someone money, you could work it off. You could take slaves in war - which is, in my opinion, better than the common practice of the time, of slaughtering all men of the age who could hold a weapon, while taking the women and children as slaves. Oh, and if you did take a woman as a "sexual" slave, she pretty much gained rights close to marriage. (Which admitted in those days, were not what they are these days, but certainly still better than being chattel or what contemporaneous nations were doing).
There are parts of the bible that reflect a character of a God inconsistent with the gooey, syrupy, idealised version of God some atheists, and indeed some Christians want. I can't explain those. Perhaps a theologically trained academic or pastor could. But becoming a parent, I have a greater appreciation of what tough love means. It upsets me and angers me when my two boys physically fight and hurt each other. Can I stop them doing that? Of course, I could lock them both in their separate rooms where they can't fight. But the cost of that - to them - is not one I'm willing to bear. They need to learn to get on, they need interaction with each other. They need free run of the house to do things. Of course, they could choose to separate for a time, cool off, chill out, and then continue to enjoy companionship with each other, and freedom.
I see the same thing with God. Can he make a perfect world with no loss, no evil, no hurt? Of course. But at what price? If you don't want to experience evil, does that mean nobody else has the free will to commit evil? Given the bible said God wanted children, not servants, free will is probably a cost too high. But for those willing to be redeemed by him, who choose obedience and relationship, then that perfect world awaits.