God's View On Violence

When we can take more than we need (and are doing so) greed shows more. We are all subject to it though. I mean, you don't have to be wealthy for it to be subject to greedy feelings

It is better to have more than you need so you have less stress about future days when you might run out of it. Maybe people justify this idea more often when they have more people to take care for but still it is a common principle. It is not necessarily greed/greedy but the 'border' can be easily crossed

 

well you know, it isn't just christianity. every revealed religion says god takes a very dim view of it.
and yet every fanatacism of ever religion uses its religion as an excuse for it.
what this suggests to me, is that fanatics of every religion, or claiming to of whatever religion they do,
really don't understand very well the intend and purpose of their own beliefs,
they claim their fanatacisms to be of.

 

Which is?....:

bad when it is inflicted on your loved ones/good people. Good when it is inflicted on your enemies/bad people? This transcends religion me thinks.

 

Since this is the Christianity section.....isn't it supposed to be good to control our greed and other negative tendencies? Although I'm not a Christian, that was always the kind of message I got from JC.

But obviously there's a line between a legitimate and sensible policy of storing up stuff for future use and storing away more than you will or can ever need.

At what point does the greedy person become a bad person? Maybe if they have more than they need and see others with less than they need and think to themselves it's ok because I'm special,I worked for it, inherited it, or some such rationalization.

The greed of some individuals seems to be so excessive that it threatens to drag down the collective. Take our friends in investment banking for example. They don't seem to care if their activities cause widespread economic misery for millions, because 'I'm alright Jack'.

 

Obviously

I was not defending greed or real greedy people. But I'd say it is sometimes closely connected to feelings (and actions) of self preservation (like storing up for example). Same with people that have control over a big pile of money or other stuff: they do not necessarily have to be greedy, they could have been really fortunate when being busy with keeping themselves secure for the future. When they happen to feel no connection with people on the other side of the world at all, are they really greedy assholes for only giving 20 euros to a charity? Or merely your opinion

Same with the poor bugger with a family who does anything to aquire money in order to go to Bali in summer. Is he really less greedy by definition just because he doesn't have a lot of stuff or money? Nope.

It all depends on the person and situation.

It is just easier to spot when people are granted big piles of money like in banking for example.

I think you give a pretty good definition yourself already. It's around the point when:

About this:

This also seems to come down to how big their 'us'/'we' feeling extends. In general everybody takes care of their own people if they can. 'Their own people' can just be a very small group

But yes, often the idea that they have worked for it themselves and there will always be differences in incomes and they are not the ones responsible for that is present as well.

 

I don't think we all need to give everything away, or that people shouldn't be able to enjoy the fruits of their work. If someone works to pay for a trip abroad, I don't have a problem with that at all. Nor with people taking care of their family or friends.

Probably I expect too high an ethical standard from people. It seems to me that the happiness of the individual is part of the happiness of the whole, and we have to try to view things globally. If all a person is concerned about is the well being of their own small group, they need to wake up IMO. I daresay those French aristos were concerned about their own small group before the revolution,but it didn't help them much when the flood gates broke on the misery they were causing for the majority.
Now we have rich corporations etc who feel that it's alright to damage the environment, wipe out animal species, and strip away resources from future generations just so they and their buddies can be 'happy'.

As for the difference in incomes - I think that will always be there for the foreseeable future, but it's the scale of the difference that is a threat, because as long as the rich hold power, they will ensure that their own nests are very well lined to the detriment of those at the bottom of the pile.