jb, I think you might have inadvertently misunderstood my previous post. You wrote: << what in the world do you think the production of wealth involves, making a table? >> I think the production of wealth involves the expenditure of labor to add value to certain materials. (The labor theory of value as enunciated by Smith and Franklin, and amplified by Marx is the most useful theory, I think). What do you think it involves? <<sewing a dress?>> Yes. This is adding value to given materials to produce wealth, and is therefore one example of economic production. (But only if the dress is produced for exchange or sale). <<at the level of the individual this doesn't usually produce wealth, it barely manages subsistence.>> What does the individual produce, if not wealth? How is subsistence possible without some such production of wealth? In the case of Jesus, when he (and his father) acted as carpenters, they added value to the materials they purchased, and sold them. They used the proceeds to purchase other goods which were necessary for subsistence, and for the continuation of production. This is a common feudal and pre-feudal mode of production. I am suprised you find it odd or strange. In developing countries this is still how many, many people still produce wealth. (Granted, we are not talking about large amounts of wealth; but it is the only kind of wealth that over half the world's population has access to). <<the production of goods and services is not synonymous with producing individual wealth.>> I did not say it was synonymous. I simply said it was one way of producing wealth, that Jesus engaged in it, and that consequently there was no reason to believe he was against the production of wealth. <<the logic of your remarks above suggests that it's okay to become wealthy, as long as one does it in the absence of the poor; >> This is one way, perhaps, to interpret my words. But that was not the meaning I wished to convey. I am differentiating between two acts: PRODUCING WEALTH, and BECOMING WEALTHY. It seems that Jesus did not have any problem with the first, but said that the second was fraught with all sorts of moral difficulties and spiritual peril. <<I'll tell you what's clear; you miss the spirit of the teaching of Christ just as badly as you miss the spirit of the poet in Pound.>> Well, of course there are as many exponents of the "spirit of the teaching of Christ" as there are individuals. I leave it to you to expound the teaching as you see fit of course. You could spell it out for us if you like. I have no objection. [As to "the spirit of the poet in Pound," I am trying to explicate the meaning of Pound's work, which may not be precisely the same thing that you are talking about. In any case, the same rule as regards "the spirit of the teaching of Christ" may apply. I invite you to give us your rendering of the "the spirit of the poet in Pound," as you see it.] <<anyone who would claim that the miracle of changing water to wine is an act of economic production with a straight face must be truly desperate!>> You can gauge the extent to which I am determined to make this claim (with a straight face) by the following: I take my cue from the Liberation Theologians, and their predecessors, such as Winstanley, who spoke about God as a Producer. I presume you acknowledge the notion of God as a Creator as being within the realm of acceptable discourse. The Creation of the Universe by God can be viewed, at the most basic level, as an act of economic production (it is much more than that, certainly). Christ is, according to most Western theologians the embodiment of God on earth. When he creates wine out of water, this act represents (in the economic realm) the equivalent of certain amount of labor time which otherwise would have been needed to produce the said amount of wine. This act of the creation of wine out of water may resemble the creation of the physical universe by God, insofar as it appears to violate the laws of nature (as comprehended within the limitations of ordinary human understanding). In any case, the act of creation, of making something (by a human or by a divine agency) makes other acts of economic production possible, or frees up labor for other actions. Winstanley said the earth was the "Common treasury of Humanity" given to humankind by God so that each should be able to make his living. This seems reasonable to me. I find it difficult to believe that either God or Christ (or both) can be opposed to the creation of wealth, since they both engage in it. The God-man (Jesus Christ) fishes, and acts as a carpenter to demonstrate that he wishes to share his labor with humankind. According to Gustavo Gutierrez, author of "A Theology of Liberation," the work of Christ is presented to us simultaneously a liberation from sin, and from all its consequences: despoiliation, hatred, and injustice." (TL, 158). What Christ would oppose in our current context, I think, is exploitation: mass production where the worker has no control over the means of production, where he has no democratic voice in the organization of the conditions of labor, or in the distribution of the proceeds of labor. "it's true that not everyone could live life exactly as Christ lived . . . " We do agree here. "no one, including Christ, ever expected that they could -- " We agree here also. <<but it is expected that a Christian should base his or her life on the ethical and moral dimensions that Christ taught, and which was exemplified in his life.>> We appear to agree here also. I think our differences may simply lie in the manner in which we believe that Christ's teachings can be applied in the economic sphere. Pound, I think, did not believe it desireable to contemplate that question. That may be one of the reasons that his economic analyses suffer from several shortcomings, from the ethical, moral, or spiritual perspective. How else can we explain his endorsing fascist economic policies which hastened the economic collapse of Italy, and which deprived the worker of control over the fruits of his labor? How else can we explain his strong belief in Confucian forms of economic order which only reinforced the power of the feudal lords at the expense of the Chinese peasant? Regards, Wei ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com