CrackerJackAg said:
Capitalism and Christianity are incompatible. This is true. Although I'm fairly certain it's not for Christian reasons that they want communism.
The rest of it just from the title sounds insane.
Howdy Dammit said:
Capitalism as an economic system and personal finance choice are two different things.
CrackerJackAg said:Howdy Dammit said:
Capitalism as an economic system and personal finance choice are two different things.
And neither have anything to do with Christianity.
Howdy Dammit said:CrackerJackAg said:
Capitalism and Christianity are incompatible. This is true. Although I'm fairly certain it's not for Christian reasons that they want communism.
The rest of it just from the title sounds insane.
Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other form of economics. Not sure I follow how this isn't compatible with Christianity?
Quote:
He didn't say, invest your money wisely into corporations, and get a return it
craigernaught said:
I don't think that terms like capitalism and Marxism are very useful terms to apply to the historical Jesus or the early church. I think they describe issues and circumstances in a modern economy that aren't applicable to the late second temple period. When we do so we end up stretching the meaning of the language and cherry picking which parts of their political and economic beliefs to promote.
The Romans were certainly intent on the owner of property being able to use and abuse property however they so chose, but that included people and slaves and it only applies to a certain class of owners. The Greek Platonic ideal was wildly authoritarian and collectivist but it never actually worked. And the biblical vision is simultaneously anti-empire yet shares common property and obligations at a local level mixed in with a good amount of royal monarchy just to make it confusing.
I don't think these fit very well in a modern economy or political context.
Then you've created your own inconsistency here. If Christianity has nothing to do with capitalism, then leave capitalism alone and there is no moral argument that you can make for or against an economic system formed from the top down in the name in Christianity.CrackerJackAg said:craigernaught said:
I don't think that terms like capitalism and Marxism are very useful terms to apply to the historical Jesus or the early church. I think they describe issues and circumstances in a modern economy that aren't applicable to the late second temple period. When we do so we end up stretching the meaning of the language and cherry picking which parts of their political and economic beliefs to promote.
The Romans were certainly intent on the owner of property being able to use and abuse property however they so chose, but that included people and slaves and it only applies to a certain class of owners. The Greek Platonic ideal was wildly authoritarian and collectivist but it never actually worked. And the biblical vision is simultaneously anti-empire yet shares common property and obligations at a local level mixed in with a good amount of royal monarchy just to make it confusing.
I don't think these fit very well in a modern economy or political context.
I agree with the statement 100%. It's a little bit of a paradox of terminologies I was having with myself about my own comments.
The Romans and the ancient world at the time believe there was a finite amount of money. Which means that if you took money from the poor, then that was just money gone, and the accumulation of riches by one man was immoral when others were starving.
I think there's a good argument that capitalism is an obvious tool given to us by the intellect God bestowed upon us that can be used well, or can be used for evil.
It still has nothing to do with Christianity itself.
Imperialism also did all of these things better than capitalism. From Imperial Rome to Imperial Russia to Imperial Britain, nearly all the fantastic cathedrals were built by empires. That doesn't make empires better for Christianity than other systems. In parts of the world the church is greatly supported by organized crime. That doesn't make organized crime some amazing boon to Christianity. The current Russian state has financially and politically supported Christianity more than pretty much every other nation combined since 2000, but it's also a very corrupt nation that is seen to have corrupted the Russian Orthodox Church. Let's not confuse worldly goals and achievements with heavenly goals and achievements.Quote:
Capitalism has enabled the spread of the Good News, as people funded Paul's early ministry with money they had earned. Capitalism built churches, cathedrals, hospitals, schools, and directly funds our modern churches.
Capitalism runs on self-actualization. You have the freedom to pursue as little or as much wealth as you want, in whatever occupation you want, and however close to illegal/immoral means you want. Against other parties who have been given the same freedoms, but choose their path differently.Zobel said:
I reject the idea that capitalism runs on greed. Self interest and greed are not the same thing.
CrackerJackAg said:
Wordly wealth and prosperity have nothing to do with Christianity. That's an American Protestant cultural crossover.
Christ told his disciples to put away their nets (financial livelihood) and follow him.
Early Christianity was full of examples (Augustine, Anthony, Ambrose etc..) of people giving up their wealth to the poor and giving their life to Christ.
He didn't say, invest your money wisely into corporations, and get a return it, and share some of that with the poor or work real hard and spend as little time with your family as possible to make money and lift as many people out of poverty on earth as possible.
Not a popular American sermon on Sunday.
Stewardship has nothing to do with Christianity?CrackerJackAg said:Howdy Dammit said:
Capitalism as an economic system and personal finance choice are two different things.
And neither have anything to do with Christianity.
You make a good point about defining capitalism. Most people think capitalism=trade, but trade exists in every system. IMHO, the keystone of capitalism is the ability of any individual to own an unlimited amount of weath without interference. Under feudalism or communism, the state owns everything and the individual is only allowed to keep what is permitted. That wealth could be land, factories, weapons, or even other people. It only matters that it can be owned by any individual or collection of individuals, not just the state or the aristocracy. It's certainly open to abuse, but it seems more fair to me than only some small group of people being allowed to own anything. As far as how Christian it is, I think it depends on how Christian in the people involved are. Just like anything elseQuote:
Everyone is tossing the term capitalism around. Capitalism does have some bad actors, but supply and demand exist. Capitalism is the best form of acknowledging the truth of this, whereas communism ignores this reality. The only way we should leave capitalism behind is if someone else can use the principles of the free market and make it more moral.
The Banned said:CrackerJackAg said:
Wordly wealth and prosperity have nothing to do with Christianity. That's an American Protestant cultural crossover.
Christ told his disciples to put away their nets (financial livelihood) and follow him.
Early Christianity was full of examples (Augustine, Anthony, Ambrose etc..) of people giving up their wealth to the poor and giving their life to Christ.
He didn't say, invest your money wisely into corporations, and get a return it, and share some of that with the poor or work real hard and spend as little time with your family as possible to make money and lift as many people out of poverty on earth as possible.
Not a popular American sermon on Sunday.
The Bible does say the first shall be last and the last shall be first. I have no doubts that people who struggle through this life in poverty will be rewarded more than those who had it very easy. People taking a vow of poverty when they had the means to be wealthy is an incredible gift. For those that can't/don't do that, hopefully they are be as generous as they can be and don't lose themselves in their wealth, including be willing to have more children, since they can comfortably afford it, and avoiding having "the best of everything" instead choosing to settle for "comfortable" and giving the rest to those in need.
There's a perfect Bibleproject podcast about it, and it jumps between biblical parables and an interview of an Aggie as well! So now you're compelled to listen to it.Howdy Dammit said:The Banned said:CrackerJackAg said:
Wordly wealth and prosperity have nothing to do with Christianity. That's an American Protestant cultural crossover.
Christ told his disciples to put away their nets (financial livelihood) and follow him.
Early Christianity was full of examples (Augustine, Anthony, Ambrose etc..) of people giving up their wealth to the poor and giving their life to Christ.
He didn't say, invest your money wisely into corporations, and get a return it, and share some of that with the poor or work real hard and spend as little time with your family as possible to make money and lift as many people out of poverty on earth as possible.
Not a popular American sermon on Sunday.
The Bible does say the first shall be last and the last shall be first. I have no doubts that people who struggle through this life in poverty will be rewarded more than those who had it very easy. People taking a vow of poverty when they had the means to be wealthy is an incredible gift. For those that can't/don't do that, hopefully they are be as generous as they can be and don't lose themselves in their wealth, including be willing to have more children, since they can comfortably afford it, and avoiding having "the best of everything" instead choosing to settle for "comfortable" and giving the rest to those in need.
Curious as to others thoughts on this in relation to saving for retirement. Is it wrong to amass a retirement account with several million dollars to enable yourself to hang it up at 55 and ensure your wife family can have the means to age with dignity? I don't view that as selfish, but it does require hoarding money.
UTExan said:
This is exactly why seminarians should be required to take Economics and Business Administration.
Its a slippery slope to grant Capitalism with the spread of Christianity. The spread may have been a side effect, but it absolutely wasn't/isn't the goal. The goal of capitalism is to allow everyone to compete and the best succeed, often regardless of how they use their 'gifts'. Capitalism is an effective economy for a free society. But trying to fit it into the 'Christian' box is a bit much.The Chicken Ranch said:
No thoughts on the non-binary gender, canibas meditation or transexual/gender utopia that Christ allegedly preached about?
While I know there will not be money in Heaven, and all our needs provided for directly by God, He also gives us gifts and abilities on earth to navigate our society and to help the poor by lifting them up, feeding them and showing them how to thrive. The parable about giving a man a fish, vs teaching him how to fish comes to mind.
The PCUSA is using CrackerJack's point to shill for totalitarian Marxism.m
Capitalism has enabled the spread of the Good News, as people funded Paul's early ministry with money they had earned. Capitalism built churches, cathedrals, hospitals, schools, and directly funds our modern churches.
No doubt. Where did you land?Quote:
So glad we left that cesspool. No doubt they are worshiping satan at this point.
Martin Q. Blank said:No doubt. Where did you land?Quote:
So glad we left that cesspool. No doubt they are worshiping satan at this point.
Howdy Dammit said:CrackerJackAg said:Howdy Dammit said:
Capitalism as an economic system and personal finance choice are two different things.
And neither have anything to do with Christianity.
Maybe. But it's pretty dang hard to cloth the naked and feed the hungry when you're naked and starving.
Zobel said:
nobody has a right to a just wage.
Quote:
"A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good. Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages."
