Ain't had one of these for a while.

[IR35 Avoider]

Avarice
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.

Just to clarify what this is saying, there is nothing wrong with wanting to acquire or possess more one "needs or deserves", it's only avarice if this desire is "excessive."

Of course "excessive" is a bit subjective. According to my understanding of Christianity, if your net worth (including all saleable possessions right down to the single set of clothes you are wearing at a give moment) exceeds the price of your next meal, you have fallen short of the moral ideal by not selling such possesions to feed those who don't know where there next meal is coming from. In other words, according to Christian morality, all of us who are wealthier than a poorly-clad homeless person with £5 in his pockets are "greedy" and it's only the degree that varies.

Of course this is not a commonly accepted definition of what degree of "selfishness" constitutes greed, I'm raising it just to highlight how subjective it is.

Now I'm an atheist, but when socialists get on their high horse I would like to raise the issue of just how subjective "greed" is, and ask them why anyone wealthier that that hypothetical homeless person should receive anything when there are other people in the world who are even more hard-up. Does being born British give you a moral entitlement to more than being born Ethiopian? Socialists use the language of morality to justify their policies, so I would like to ask them why they don't advocate abolishing the NHS and spending the money in the third-world, where the same money would buy far more "good." (e.g. the money not spent on a heart transplant to save one life could provide clean water that saves thousands.)

[ASB]

Nonsense. A pension makes provision for your old age. The main reason for extra houses is greed, it is not a way of saving, it is a means of exploitation. It penalises and exploits first time buyers, pushes up house prices and generates an artificial demand. It is also an abuse of our resources and morally bankrupt. It harks back to the days of the feudal system, of Lords and their manors with peasants living in straw huts.

So the existance of a private rented sector is morally bankrupt then?

You have at least taken a large step back from "the only reason".

Anyway you may be right, it may be that the main reason for extra housing is greed. Although those that do may consider it a return on the risk they are taking.

A significant portion of people owning more than one house do so because their choice of provision for their dotage is via property investment. It's a choice I made years ago. Whether it turns out to be a wise one remains to be seen.

[stackpole]

Avarice
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.

Now having two homes isn't necessary and the only reason for doing so is obtaining more material wealth hence this is greed - can your feeble intellect grasp that ?

JW you are an arse.

Two houses means a home for the buyer to live in, another house to rent out and eventually sell for his pension. Do you understand what a pension is? Is it your opinion that nobody needs or deserves one?

[Jabberwocky]

Stuckpole, I am afraid you are the butt of this thread - another home is an investment precisely because of the greed of the investor - it pushes up the price of homes and contributes nothing to our economy. That is exploiting those who cannot afford a first home, it raises the entry bar beyond cost just to satisfy the greed of the landowners. You may may as well invest your money in maize and sell it for slave labor to those in Africa. That would make "good" money too.

[Chico]

Come again??

IR35

According to my understanding of Christianity, if your net worth (including all saleable possessions right down to the single set of clothes you are wearing at a give moment) exceeds the price of your next meal, you have fallen short of the moral ideal by not selling such possessions to feed those who don't know where there next meal is coming from. In other words, according to Christian morality, all of us who are wealthier than a poorly-clad homeless person with £5 in his pockets are "greedy" and it's only the degree that varies.

Que? Your understanding is inaccurate. Read the Old Testament about Abraham, Kings David and Solomon and Job etc just about anyone who was not a Prophet, Priest etc but faithfully followed God's commands were exceedingly rich (blessed by God).In the New Testament Jesus rejects the the young rich man as a follower not because of his wealth per se but because of his attitude. (Matt 19: 16 - 30).

The parable of the talents and the story of Zacchaeus the Tax Collector (Luke 19) shows that it what you do with the money and your attitude toward its that determines your destiny.

[vetran]

Avarice or Philanthropy?

Surely renting out a house at market value is a decision to help someone who is unable to get on the housing ladder whilst safeguarding your future? Many people make a decision to rent because it suits their circumstances.

What is pushing the price of houses up is supply & demand! If we had a population that grew at a slower rate or didn't have a population with changing housing needs or even spread people out across the country we wouldn't be in this mess.

There will allways be have and have nots, its when the haves are very few in number or the gap is very wide there is a problem, something that has become more pronounced under new labour thanks to their idiotic policies.

[IR35 Avoider]

just about anyone who was not a Prophet, Priest etc but faithfully followed God's commands were exceedingly rich

I infer from your choice of this argument that your strain of Christianity owes something to modern American versions. Also, the fact that in this post and others you're as prone to quote the old testament as the new gives me the feeling that there is a fundamentalist streak, which lends weight to the "modern American" theory. Of course I could be reading to much into a few remarks, and as an atheist I hardly take a close interest in these things, so I shouldn't be to emphatic in support of my own views.

Getting back to the question, and assuming my diagnosis of your strain is correct, I know millions of people believe what you believe, but I think my parents would say your belief belongs to a minority sub-strain of Christianity, albeit a fast-growing one that really started to take off in the 1980s.

Having said that, my parents do have wealthy friends, who are also very religious, and my parents don't disaprove of them. And my parents are far from poor by world standards. I interpret this not as a contradiction of the claim I make for their beliefs, or hypocrisy on their part, but simply that every-one falls short of their ideal, and it's only the degree that varies.

For me as an atheist the difference between your view and mine is a difference of view about what constitutes mainstream Christian culture.

Obviously from your point of view it makes sense to treat is as a theological question, as you have.

Does your tradition really say (to make up an example) that some-one who buys a bottom of the range small Korean hatchback instead of a top of the range BMW 4X4 and gives the difference to a third world charity is no more virtuous than the person who buys the BMW? And if not, why would you not take the principal (of giving away what you can do without) to it's logical conclusion?

The logical conclusion may not be quite as extreme as giving everything away until you're my hypothetical homeless person - one could argue for just enough possessions to sustain a life-style that allowed one to make as much money as possible, so that you had more to give away.

[Lucifer Box]

Clearly the government should confiscate all privately held property and assign us all a billet in a work camp. It's only "fair" to those who can't afford to buy after all. No one really "needs" to own a house - that's just greed.