TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Christianity was always for the poor (2024)

64 pointsby YeGoblynQueenne28 days ago

11 comments

louison1127 days ago
Early Christian teachings were deeply anti-wealth — but context matters. Back then, wealth mostly came from land grabs, tax farming, and debt slavery. The rich were rich because the poor were poor. Christianity started as a movement of the oppressed under empire, and its ethic of radical sharing was a way to survive a brutal, zero-sum system.<p>Fast-forward to today: most people aren’t living under that kind of direct economic violence. In fact, doing what early Christians did — selling everything and giving it away — would often create more suffering. Try paying for healthcare or your kid’s college without savings. In a modern context, investing, and wealth-building can be acts of love and protection — not greed. I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;d make me a better man and father to just subject my entire family to poverty.<p>So maybe the point isn’t “money = evil,” but “systems that enrich some by grinding down others = evil.” The ethical challenge is still valid — just adapted for a world where your 401(k) isn’t funded by enslaving your neighbor.<p>It&#x27;s not that we should interpret the Bible differently and make it say whatever we want; but that like any story, we need to look at the context within which it took place.
评论 #43758453 未加载
评论 #43756452 未加载
评论 #43756796 未加载
评论 #43762077 未加载
teleforce26 days ago
Fun facts, before muslim migration to Yathrib (now Madinah), one of the popular and richest Christian Byzantine Roman Emperors namely Heraclius was questioning the Meccan leader Abu Sufyan at the time (who later in his life become muslim) regarding Muhammad [1].<p>One of the question was “Do the nobles follow him or the weak?&quot;. It&#x27;s reported that Abu Sufyan answered: “The weak and poor among us follow him. As for the high born and noble, none follow him.” The Emperor after that replied “I then asked you if the noble or the weak followed him. You answered that the weak followed him. Even so has it been with all the prophets, such having followed them.” [2]<p>[1] Heraclius:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Heraclius" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Heraclius</a><p>[2] The Hadith of Heraclius | Part 2 | Heraclius Interrogates Abu Sufyan on the Prophet:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.aljumuah.com&#x2F;the-hadith-of-heraclius-part-2-heraclius-interrogates-abu-sufyan-on-the-prophet&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.aljumuah.com&#x2F;the-hadith-of-heraclius-part-2-hera...</a>
ivape28 days ago
Important to note that Christianity also spread amongst the poor&#x2F;common&#x2F;persecuted folk first. It wasn&#x27;t really spread initially by any power structure or crusade.<p>And Christ straight up kicking out business from the church (as in he flipped their tables over, literally):<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Cleansing_of_the_Temple" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Cleansing_of_the_Temple</a>
评论 #43746341 未加载
评论 #43745991 未加载
评论 #43745843 未加载
评论 #43755845 未加载
评论 #43756146 未加载
评论 #43746381 未加载
a3w28 days ago
Was only calvinism a branch that said &quot;Personal wealth is good, people deserve to strive for richness on earth for themselves as god will promote it for mostly his loved ones&quot;?
评论 #43745871 未加载
graemep28 days ago
It raises some interesting issues about translation. The implication being translators veer away from what is uncomfortable to their society.
评论 #43746403 未加载
johnea28 days ago
As someone who&#x27;s pretty significantly left (at least in the US political spectrum) I&#x27;ve become pretty fed up with Jacobin.<p>The author of this article is a religious historian, which explains a lot of the &quot;circuitous&quot; language (his word).<p>But to me, the whole article is just &quot;blah blah blah&quot;, pointless exposition with no real bearing on current reality.<p>Whatever may, or may not, have been the case in the Levant 2000 years ago (and no one really knows); this is 2025, and according to many US &quot;christians&quot; the most famous quote of the little bebe jesus is &quot;f_ck the poor, let &#x27;em rot in the gutter&quot;. Ironically, failing to acknowledge that many of them fit into that very category.<p>If the author would like to differ with the ideals of christianity regarding wealth, maybe he should write to the vatican? You know, that autonomous country inside of Italy, with it&#x27;s own central bank, and storehouses of looted nazi treasure. The current pope aside, they haven&#x27;t exactly been a savior of the poor historically.<p>I&#x27;m sure many earnest, caring, giving christians will be downvoting my post. But a reality of our world, outside of philosophical sophistry. is that religion has been the source of more murder and mayhem than any other single cause.<p>It may have been originally a practice of the poor, but the only reason it&#x27;s still a phenomenon in the modern world is because the wealthy and powerful have promoted and used it as a tool to rile the poor into dismembering each other, to see which rich guy gets the goods.<p>Sorry, I&#x27;m an evangelical atheist for life...
评论 #43748329 未加载
fithisux28 days ago
Like it politico-economical incarnation, the communism (because its ideology was an ad-hoc smear campaign against Christianity, a tree that decides to saw of its roots).
selfhoster1128 days ago
As a Bible-believing Christian, I am appalled by the ahistoricity and the lack of respect for the plain interpretation of the text of the Bible, as displayed by the author of this article. It&#x27;s mind-boggling that one would choose to cherry-pick what amounts to a few chapters of a far larger body of teachings, and re-interpret Christianity as an economic movement.<p>Consider: the core teaching of Christianity is that a certain person, Jesus of Nazareth, was the promised Messiah (the Anointed One, King of Jews, a role written about at length by the Old Testament), that He was the Son of God, that He had both a fully divine and a fully human nature, that He died a painful death on the cross as a price for forgiveness of all human sins and direct access to God for every person, and that He literally rose again from the dead three days after that. That&#x27;s the core of the faith, that&#x27;s the most important part that makes Christianity, Christianity. Those are the things you need to agree you believe in so that you can legitimately call yourself a Christian. The rest is secondary.<p>Now tell me, <i>how does this have anything to do with economics or the forgiveness of literal debts</i>? The Bible is very direct and quotes Jesus as saying: &quot;My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.&quot; (John 18:36). This verse outright contradicts any interpretation that Christianity is about political power or concerns on this side of the divide between mortality and the eternity (parenthetically, this is the reason why to me what American Evangelism developed into is so disturbing). It should be something <i>of</i> concern, but not <i>the</i> concern. Christianity is not communism. Christianity is not benevolent philanthropy. Christianity is none of those things that one tries to pin it down, if one adopts a frame free of God as the core consideration. Christianity is about trying to establish a connection with God, while it&#x27;s not too late to do that. Trying to reduce it to a cause revolving around money in some way is absurd in the magnitude of misunderstanding on display here.<p>I know that many here will be sceptics or non-believers, so many will skip this comment. But if you want to critique Christianity, at least do so in the spirit of not misrepresenting fundamental claims and tenets of the faith you disagree with. I trust that intellectual honesty is the name of the game on HN, and that&#x27;s all I ask for.
评论 #43747725 未加载
评论 #43747035 未加载
评论 #43755441 未加载
评论 #43755894 未加载
评论 #43748103 未加载
mrozbarry26 days ago
I&#x27;m going to comment with the preface that I gave up reading the article. It feels like a word-salad, and I&#x27;m getting lost trying to find the point a lot of the time.<p>Christianity is Jesus Christ substitutes the sin of a faithful man or woman with His righteousness.<p>You cannot buy faithfulness, and you cannot obtain righteousness through good works on your own.<p>The target has never been against wealth, but the love of money, or trusting in the things of this lifetime. For instance, Proverbs 11:28 says not to trust in wealth. Mark 8:36, Jesus states that if you seek wealth over everything else, what good is it when you die? In 1 Timothy 6:17-19, Paul encourages Timothy in his leadership to instruct wealthy people to not put their hope in their wealthy, but to do good with what God has given them.
Woodi26 days ago
No, christianity is not only for poor. Jacobins do jacobins propaganda.<p>In article &quot;rich young man is mentioned&quot; - uh, oh, hi should give everything! Let&#x27;s see:<p>- first Jesus answered: obey commandments in your life - that rich man duty too.<p>- then when he answered he do that since his young years Jesus proposed him to leave everything behind - it was explanation what this man was looking for: heart tied to earthy things. And invitation.<p>Not everyone should be monk but definitely we need more peoples devoting lives for others good: nurses, teachers.<p>And that story shows bright like sunlight that riches make your life miserable - and this article tries to state exactly reverse thing :&gt; Who you trust? I recommend Jesus over Lucis.
skybrian28 days ago
Well, it was until it became the state religion of the Roman Empire. Christians with the power of the state, at a time when religious tolerance wasn’t invented yet, were something else. Things got pretty complicated due to the bitter political disputes between the bishops of different cities.