That Bible verse is Jesus talking about people having no knowledge of the kingdom of heaven. What little knowledge they have will be taken away, and that's why he's speaking in parables, and not saying things more plainly. I don't see how that applies to this article.

You're right about that specific verse but that line is repeated throughout the Bible - some within the specific context of compounding money (Luke 19:26).

It applies to the article because the Pareto principle (also known as the Matthew effect [1]) explains why there's so many open source projects with low revenue and only a few with six figure revenues.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect

That's the thing about stories and literature, they can be different things to different people.

A story about loss can be a love song to one person, a dead loved one or a missed opportunity to another...

Please do not use the quote from the Bible in an inappropriate context.

Matthew 13:11 is

He replied, "Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

The context makes it clear that 13:12 is talking about spiritual possessions/riches, and not an endorsement of the 1 percent. Camel, eye of the needle, not serving God and mammon etc. all deal with this.

Luke 19:26 repeats the line but within the context of money. It certainly isn't an "endorsement of the 1 percent", but more a statement of truth observed in virtually every human domain.

I do agree. But ever since Malcom Gladwell popularised the "Matthew effect", I am sad that an-out-of context quote is used to justify the promotion of deliberate cold-blooded apathy towards inequality. Whereas it is very clear in other contexts that the New Testament discourages accumulation of wealth. (Disclaimer: I am not a Christian, but read the Bible and other scriptures regularly).

I don't understand how you got "endorsement of the 1 percent" from "general principal".

Think of it another way. Imagine two people with Tom Brady's talent: one ends with mansions in Southern California and multiple superbowl titles, the other ends up unemployed in Arkansas.

People can use quotes from any book in any context they wish.

The Church has always said that the same Bible verse can have multiple true, correct meanings, as long as they don't contradict one another.

In other words, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer."

Although, technically that Bible verse has significantly richer and more useful meaning than your interpretation, I don't think it doesn't mean what you said either. St. Augustine affirms the common opinion of the Church Fathers that each Bible verse may have multiple true meanings as long as they aren't incompatible with one another.

But I've seen this principle very truly at work: you have to spend money to make money. Those who have very little money to start with, usually can make very little money in return. Especially in software, if you don't spend a decent amount of money on advertising, you will almost never get anywhere.

Fortunately for those of us who don't have that money to make more money with, there are other things in life than money, and Jesus also says "blessed are the poor, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."

Since we're already derailing a conversation about open source sustainability by discussing the Bible: the only problem with "blessed are the poor..." is that getting into Heaven doesn't feed them or provide them shelter and it's very little use if the whole afterlife thing turns out to have been a false hope and the majority of Christians certainly doesn't seem to think that this in any way means they should give away their wealth to become more worthy of Heaven -- quite the opposite: they use it to justify keeping the poor poor because income inequality is really working in poor people's favors if it makes it easier for them to get into Heaven, etc etc.

Promises of a better life after death are consoling if you're at the end of a terrible life on Earth but the only good they do to the poor in desperate need is that they make them more accepting of the injustice they're experiencing.

Shut up about what happens after death and help the people who are alive right now and suffering. Because if you're wrong about the whole afterlife thing, all those people who suffered got the short end of the stick and if you're right and you still helped them, the only bad thing you maybe did to them was making them have to "work" as hard as you did to get into Heaven (if your understanding of poverty easing entry was even correct in the first place) but at least they didn't have to do it on an empty stomach while unable to afford healthcare.

> getting into Heaven doesn't feed them or provide them shelter

That's quite the opposite of what Jesus says:

> Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me. [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31...]

Jesus was ultimately concerned with each of us relieving the suffering of others while on earth, so much so that he did this constantly himself while on earth, and told all his disciples, for all future generations, to do the same. I'm sorry that there are many "Christianities" now that have considered this teaching optional.

So then emphasise that message and cut down on the "blessed are the poor" nonsense. Because in isolation that message is absolutely harmful and if the dominant interpretation of Christianity instead was "give as much as possible to those in need or you'll be punished in eternal fire" there wouldn't be much need to comfort the poor.

Read up on St. Francis of Assisi or St. Ignatius of Loyola. They sold all their riches, gave the money to the poor, then went and begged alms everyday and gave the food and money they received to the poor people that could not beg for themselves, such as people who were in hospitals or the infirm elderly. These are the true Christians. Anyone who says they're a Christian but is not concerned for relieving the suffering of others is deceiving themselves, and scandalizing people like you and me into thinking Christianity is something it isn't, which is why it took me 25 years before I finally became one.

Well, if "all of those people" aren't real Christians then it doesn't matter what real Christians believe in because there's more of "those" and they're doing real harm whatever you want to call their faith.

It doesn't matter what you or I believe in when enough people who have the means and power to influence many people's lives seem to adhere to the Abominable Fancy doctrine and whatever subset of Leviticus is useful to justify their hatred.

Well hatred is hatred, and everyone recognizes it. That's why even so many non-Christians and non-Catholics loved Pope John Paul II and Mother Theresa, because they were filled with love and had no hate in their hearts. Saints just like these two have for thousands of years been drawing so many people into the Catholic Church, and encouraged them to love with a truly selfless love. St. Francis de Sales, St. Benedict, St. Terese of Liseaux, St. Augustine, so many, too many to count. They're inspirational to so many of us, and when we asked them "where did you get this love?" they keep pointing at God and especially Jesus in the Sacraments, so we go to Mass and try to become just like these saintly, holy men and women.