I still like this mashup I made from one of the cartoons, of one of my favorite writers, Hugh Macleod, whose book Ignore Everybody I really enjoyed. This pretty much sums up the attitude of most Christians to what Jesus has done. Ho-hummm…
"Yes Jesus I love you so much and I cried so hard during Passion of the Christ, but you know I live in the real world and I've got bigger fish to fry, more important things on my mind… Don't worry… if I ever need anything I'll call, but until then, as they say, don't call us we'll call you… ;-) ;-) LOL!"
Then we set our hammer down and go about tending to more important things.
HELP FEED THE OX
If this website has blessed you spiritually then help keep it going by donating some food for the ox.
1 Timothy 5:17 NLT Elders who do their work well should be paid well, especially those who work hard at both preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “Do not keep an ox from eating as it treads out the grain.” And in another place, “Those who work deserve their pay!”
Thanks
I found this web site via your comment at http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2011/02/obama-preaches-the-false-religion-of-corporate-social-responsibility.htm
You finally say something I can agree with. “The social obligation of business is to sustainably maximize long-term profits for shareholders. Nothing more. Nothing less.”
True but the corollary is also true: Businesses are not benevolent job making, innovation creating entities. Businesses will do whatever it takes to maximize those profits including stealing, committing fraud, cheating their clients, bribing public officials, paying for beneficial legislation and paying for legal rulings; so this pollyannaish attitude towards businesses that some Republicans, conservatives and libertarians have is also wrong.
It reminds me of something that libertarian science-fiction author James P. Hogan wrote back in 1997:
At the time I wrote VOYAGE I hadn’t read anything about Marx, so they are coincidental. I guess, then, it must make me a Marxist. But then I’ve probably always been more of a socialist in favoring a society that collectively takes care of its sick, elderly, needy, educates its children, and so forth, much in the way an extended family accepts its obligations. Nobody, however, really disagrees with such goals. The disagreement is over whether it can best be achieved through state coercion or unrestricted private enterprise. I have a feeling that this isn’t a realistic alternative, since any excess of one provokes a resurgence of the other. Such swinging back and forth is a characteristic of systems that offer only a choice between two opposites. (Pendulums are moving at their fastest and impossibly to stop just at the mid point where you’d want them.) The traditional answer, as seen in the structure of political systems that have lasted, has been the division of power among three “houses” (Representatives, Senate, Executive; Parliament, Lords, Crown; Army, KGB, Party) so that when any leg of the tripod grows too long, the other two will combine against it. (Interesting that the triangle is also an inherently stable mechanical structure.)
The only point on which I’d change from when I wrote VOYAGE, and it appears where take issue with Marx, is that I have more time for religion than was the case then. Perhaps that side to our being needs to form the basis of that third side to the triangle that seems to be lacking.