Greed is Unjustified Desire

Read Sir, Dr. GEOFFREY PARRiNDER [(pbuh et al)

Recommendation:

Besides students like Mr. Desmon TUTU, & "i", et al;

First, M. Anon, thank you for your response. I am also an atheist, so my "soul" reference was just an attempt at a jab. What brand station(s) do you go to when you fill up?

Wiglaf, I am interested in your thoughts on my orginal post in response to the Rabbi's article.

To conclude (and, sorry, I do intend to continue posting):

The developing world is far better off with globalization than without it. A 2002 study by Indian economist Surjit Bhalla found that in 1950, the developing world had 72% of the globe's population and commanded 29% of global income. By 2000, 81% and 42% respectively. The industrial world's share of global income declined in the same period from 62% in 1950 to 52% in 2000.

According to World Watch, world conflict is actually in decline. Democratization, market economies and economic interconnectedness seem be playing a part, and as develping nations and their people become stakeholders, this could very well reduce armed conflict and war further.

That the developing world would be hurt by an end to globalizaion is a seperate issue from the need to insist on safe working conditions, decent wages & healthcare for all. On that need anyway, I hope we all agree.

Regards, JereyRomer

Jerseyromer:

Yours is a curious mix of neocon gibberish and provincial self-aggrandizement that connmunicates nothing other than a wish to delude your better self that you have something to say that could possibly interest others.

You don't. You are taking up space on this thread that could be used by knowledgeable, articulate people, among whom you do not number.
Kindly consider this message the next time you are tempted to click on post. And don't.

Jersyromer writes to Curious:

You know, those poor slave laborers in China are experiencing a great rise in their standard of living. The calamity in Pakistan is not the result of cheap exports to the US, and if religious extremists can be blunted there, Pakistan is poised to do very well economically.

You are confusing not one but several issues. I will confine myself to Pakistan, from which I have just returned. The calamity is not brought about by cheap exports because, as you should know, there is no manufacturing base in Pakistan.

The calamity was brought on by our interference in a very young country decades ago. Thanks to China, the economy is now improving, and about China in Pakistan you should also know.

I am an atheist, but if your thank you to Curious means you are involved with British Petroleum, then Curious' hope is well placed. However, I suspect that even the nondeity has limitations.

Few Americans have any idea of how BP has butchered and continues to butcher the world. They know nothing of BPs abysmal human rights record, less than nothing of its human rights violations in the US.

You have given me the opportunity to inform them, and inform them I shall.

Merry Anonymous

Hello Curious,

Your post demostrates a curious mix of religious sanctimony meet Marxist analysis. To repeat, on an ethical note, one should really NOT be looking into other's wallets, and should be more concerned about keeping his/hers full. Your envy, even on behalf of others, gives you away.

Marxists continually fail to understand what might be considered real "exploitation" with being paid for a day's work. Should you take someone else's property through force or fraud? Obviously not, and to attempt to equate my position into a defense of unfair business practices or political suppression is pathetic.

You know, those poor slave laborers in China are experiencing a great rise in their standard of living. The calamity in Pakistan is not the result of cheap exports to the US, and if religious extremists can be blunted there, Pakistan is poised to do very well economically.

Unable to reform political systems from within, mired in political patronage and failed centralized economies, such examples as you mention are less tales of US foreign policy blowback, than the to-be-expected failures in theocratic and undemocratic nations.

Thank you for attention to my post and your concern for my soul.

JerseyRomer

JerseyRomer:

"We should worry less about the excesses of others and be more concerned with our own measures of success."

The measure of your success is due to the exesses of others. Due to your own excesses since you participate in and benefit from theirs.

Share your views with the slave laborers who make your shirts.

Share them with all the third-world countries upon whom we impose tariffs, but whom we will not allow to impose tariffs on us.

Share them with Benazir Bhutto, whose father we made sure did not live long past the day he said he would work for an equitable distribution of wealth in Pakistan. Tell that to the people who died in 9/11 since the Others trained Osama, allowed even helped promote the development of Madrassahs in Pakistan under Zia, and elsewhere.

Tell that to Benazir Bhutoo, since the Others, to undo the Osama they made, supported a dictator, of whom the people had had enough, putting the Others in a position of telling her, coercing her, using every means possible, to get her to return to a country in which she made it clear she knew she would be killed.

Tell that to the Chileans from whom the Others took Salvador Allende and replaced him with the mass murderer Pinochet.

Tell that to the Congolese from whom the Others took Lumumba and replaced him with Kasavubu.

Tell that to the Iranians who lived under the American sponsored Shah, leading them to where they are now.

Tell that to the soft drink manufacturers who are stealing water from India leaving Indians dying of thirst.

Thou, thou, thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not covet.

Left. Right. Center. This isn't politics. This is morality. The world is not vous. And it has let you know that. It will again.

Journalists Richard Behar of Time Magazine and John Sweeney of Panorama BBC UK wrote about greed in a religious context. Your reflection from a religious standpoint is important.

A few problems with Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz's post:

The attempt to advance beyond one's "needs" is a fundamental part of the human experience. It seems silly for Rabbi Steinsaltz to bemoan the drive that propels us past the basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter.

Also, his post reflects the nonsense all too prevalent in the left by his use of the phrase "stealing opportunities." Its use suggests that there is some finite pool of moral action that when used by one can no longer be used by another.

Rather, enlightened self-interest has created in Western society degrees of wealth, health, and opportunities for free spiritual expression, that would have been unimaginable just a few centuries ago.

I am reminded of the saying regarding poverty, "the best solution to the problem of poverty is to stay out of it." We should worry less about the excesses of others and be more concerned with our own measures of success.

JerseyRomer

v

Bgone,

Thanks for your reply. You've given me a lot to think about. How does the religion business relate to imperialism, run-away capitalism & self-idolatry (be a fashonista; buy a lexis; designer fashions at bargain basement prices, no problem that they were made using slaves; get rid of your jelly role, jowls, sloping fingers, learn everything there is to know in thirty seconds; have an eidetic memory)?

Religion and greed. Explain, please. Whose interests are serving whom? Understand, you are posting to an atheist.

Wiglaf

Wiglaf:

>>I agree with him about inner greed, greed for anything--knowledge, prestige, attention, etc., self-poisoners if there ever were such.>>

Greed is just another of the many words that has taken on so many meanings it's become near meaningless. Thus we resort to, "know what I mean" when we use them.

I think therefore I am.
I want therefore I'm alive.
I want too much so I'm greedy.

So what. If we go in the reverse direction, not greedy means not wanting means I am not so I end up not being. No more for me thank you. I'm driving this pack of drunks home,, if I can afford enough gas to get them there.

I wonder what whoever though this topic up had in mind. Greed is not a fit subject for today's religious leaders, too exposing. Did you see Billy Graham shove his plate under the president's nose? Did you see who dribbed up the loot? Did you see the president and two ex presidents kneeling before the dead pope's casket? Were they just making sure he was dead or was that some kind of greedy act?

I imagine greed is a lot deeper and in more places than we can ever know. But is it bad, a deadly sin? Let the repentance begin with those who say it's a sin. Mama may have. Papa may have. God blessed the child that's got it's own. That would probably be the greedy child so I doubt that greed is contrary to the "real" God's rules.

Maybe those who claim to represent God only represent one who would be God? Greed goes all the way to wanting to be God. Can't argue that's not a sin so there must be a limit God sets on greed. It's my understanding that God is the best job there is so small wonder so many want it.

BGONE:

I cannot quibble with most of what you write, never having walked on water. And, yes, I agree that in one way or another literature connects with ideology. My problem is with the Rabbi's
Crusoe trope, Crusoe, an imperialist expression of greed and racism.

As for the rabbi's last paragraph, I find it interesting given Judaism's lack of interest in an afterlife. The idea is that ethics, morality are humanity's tools for perfecting the world--Justice. Wonder what he has in mind, to whom he is speaking, not to Jews, I would think.

I agree with him about inner greed, greed for anything--knowledge, prestige, attention, etc., self-poisoners if there ever were such.

Sorry I forgot to post my handle.

Wiglaf

Anonymous - the author of "Robinson Crusoe" began with an ideology and built a story that supports it? Yeah, probably true for all literature. How much of the story is based upon fact? How much of the Bible is based upon fact?

Wasn't there a person literally thrown off the boat because everyone was tired of hearing his complaining? Didn't that person spend a couple years on an island, (off the coast of Chili, no black folks there?) alone? Didn't his story circulate through the pubs of London after he was finally rescued and returned to England? Is there enough to say the novel has a basis in fact taken from that person's experience? Agreed all stories get a lot of help to make them more interesting and support ideologies.

The Bible is an exception to the basis in fact rule. It comes straight from God and has no basis in fact at all, just so much musing at the ceiling and supporting an ideology with pure fiction. The fact that Amenophis IV did so many of the same things Moses and Jesus did has nothing at all to do with what those holy men who wrote the Bible mused up. Brings to mind, "if the glove don't fit you must acquit." Absolutely perfect fit required? Suppose it was, "if the glove fits you must acquit"? Would OJ have made a greater effort to get it on, in a panic even?

Bgone writes:

Robinson Crusoe was a real person who got thrown off the ship because he was such a sour apple. Friday was fictional for sure because there were no black people living anywhere near where Crusoe was marooned.

Crusue may or may not have been inspired by an actual person. Opinion is divided; however, the character is fictional.

That is not the point. The ideology of the novel is the point.

Robinson Crusoe was a real person who got thrown off the ship because he was such a sour apple. Friday was fictional for sure because there were no black people living anywhere near where Crusoe was marooned.

All fiction has some basis in fact. Even the Bible, a proved hoax is based upon real events. The person on who's life Jesus is based was a woman claiming to be the son of God. She gave the sermon on the mount many times, threw the money changers out of the temple of God, was accused of blasphemy by the high priest, put on trial, convicted, sentenced to death on the cross, died in about 3 hours, and claimed she would rise from the dead, just to mention a few of the matches between her life and Gospel fiction. If the Gospels are not based upon her life they certainly could be. Maybe two people did/had all that happen to them?

The mere fact of the fictitious Robinson Crusoe is testimony to greed. He is the great white adrift, teaching the native Friday who doesn't exist until Crusoe's arrival, Crusoe a literary expression of discovery. Recall the New World.

Greed inevitably leads to the destruction of values, discontent, often to theft, imperialism.

"Thou shalt not steal."

"Thou shalt not covet."

The mere fact of the fictitious Robinson Crusoe is testimony to greed. He is the great white adrift, teaching the native Friday who doesn't exist until Crusoe's arrival, Crusoe a literary expression of discovery. Recall the New World.

Greed inevitably leads to the destruction of values, discontent, often to theft, imperialism.

"Thou shalt not steal."

"Thou shalt not covet."

Greed also has something to do with the intensity of the determination to get the things that one wants. I think greed is when a person wants thengs real bad, and will not be deterred by any means from getting them. And greed also has something to do with misplaced values, and over-emphasis on things, and the money that represents things.

Absolutely so, "greed means wishing or grasping for things that are beyond one’s needs." But who's to say what's one's needs? I only want all the money I can spend this lifetime but I don't know how long I;m going to live. I'm fairly happy but nothing like I'd be if happiness would only buy money.