Jesus Christ and Socialism? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Jesus Christ and Socialism?


High-Gear
08-06-2012, 16:45
I've seen Christians call others "Socialist" several times on this forum. I'v asked the question and not recieved an answer up to this point.

Wasn't Christ a Socialist?

Doesn't "Capitalism" stem from coveting other's goods?

Didn't Jesus tell people to sell all they owned and give it to those in need?

Didn't Jesus say it would be easier for a wealthy man to ride a camel through the eye of a needle then to enter the gates of heaven?

How did the political party of the super wealthy, and corporate profits become synonymous with the party of god?
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2010/04/-jesus-christ-was-a-liberal-socialist.html

Just topics for discussion, not attacks.

Kingarthurhk
08-06-2012, 17:00
There were aspects of giving in scripture on a communal level and then there are aspects of capitalism/self-sufficiency.

2 Thessalonians 3:6-14, "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, <sup class="crossreference" value='(J (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29685J))'></sup> we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from <sup class="crossreference" value='(K (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29685K))'></sup> every believer who is idle and disruptive <sup class="crossreference" value='(L (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29685L))'></sup> and does not live according to the teaching<sup class="footnote" value='[a (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-29685a)]'>[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+3&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29685a)]</sup> you received from us. <sup class="crossreference" value='(M (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29685M))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">7 </sup>For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. <sup class="crossreference" value='(N (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29686N))'></sup> We were not idle when we were with you, <sup class="versenum">8 </sup>nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked <sup class="crossreference" value='(O (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29687O))'></sup> night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. <sup class="versenum">9 </sup>We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, <sup class="crossreference" value='(P (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29688P))'></sup> but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. <sup class="crossreference" value='(Q (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29688Q))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">10 </sup>For even when we were with you, <sup class="crossreference" value='(R (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29689R))'></sup> we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work <sup class="crossreference" value='(S (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29689S))'></sup> shall not eat.”
<sup class="versenum">11 </sup>We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. <sup class="crossreference" value='(T (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29690T))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">12 </sup>Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ <sup class="crossreference" value='(U (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29691U))'></sup> to settle down and earn the food they eat. <sup class="crossreference" value='(V (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29691V))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">13 </sup>And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good. <sup class="crossreference" value='(W (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29692W))'></sup>

<sup class="versenum">14 </sup>Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, <sup class="crossreference" value='(X (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29693X))'></sup> in order that they may feel ashamed. <sup class="crossreference" value='(Y (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-29693Y))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">15 </sup>Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer."

NMG26
08-06-2012, 17:00
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2010/04/-jesus-christ-was-a-liberal-socialist.html

Just topics for discussion, not attacks.

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life”.


Sobering.

Kingarthurhk
08-06-2012, 17:02
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life”.


Sobering.

Indeed.

SIGlock
08-06-2012, 19:34
For your information, Christians have given more to the poor than atheists. Hec, for church purposes alone....we are supposed to give 10% (tithe).

In general, I notice that my conservative friends tend to give to charity more than my liberal friends. That's my own fact.

If any of you here give more than 15% of your income (after tax) to charity....then you can quote the Bible's verses and be prideful about it. If not, you need to shut up.


Yes, I am Christian. Are you?

High-Gear
08-06-2012, 19:56
For your information, Christians have given more to the poor than atheists. Hec, for church purposes alone....we are supposed to give 10% (tithe).

In general, I notice that my conservative friends tend to give to charity more than my liberal friends. That's my own fact.

If any of you here give more than 15% of your income (after tax) to charity....then you can quote the Bible's verses and be prideful about it. If not, you need to shut up.


Yes, I am Christian. Are you?

Wow, why so much hate? Did I strike a nerve? How Christian of you to strike out in anger. Not everything has to be a contest (Christian vs. Atheist).

I said nothing about giving to charity. I pointed out Jesus said some pretty socialist things, and many of the main lessons of the bible seem to lean that way, and away from amassing large fortunes. Jesus seemed to preach about taking care of your fellow man, caring for the sick (without a preferred provider network) and not seeking a profit for it. Now what I was trying to discuss is how that might translate into how we view things today where profit is the bottom line motivator, and amassing enough money to purchase the latest and greatest material item is paramount.
This was not meant to question any individual's charitable deeds.

But since you brought it up...
I don't think giving to your church (clubhouse) automatically equals giving to charity. Granted if they are using those funds to feed the poor that is one thing, but to have a new $30,000 sound system, maybe that is something different.

NMG26
08-06-2012, 20:56
If any of you here give more than 15% of your income (after tax) to charity....then you can quote the Bible's verses and be prideful about it. If not, you need to shut up.
Yes, I am Christian. Are you?

The verse came from the OP's webpage.

I'm not a Christian. I can learn from Christ and the Bible though.............can you?

I find the quoted verse to be sobering, I think more so to the Christian. If you really look at what it says, are you doing even close to what Jesus is asking you to?

BenjiEDF
08-07-2012, 00:32
http://www.moonbattery.com/Socialism_by_miniamericanflags.jpg

I don't think Jesus would approve :whistling:

BenjiEDF
08-07-2012, 00:38
Doesn't "Capitalism" stem from coveting other's goods?



No, capitalism is based on voluntarism. Voluntary trade that is mutually beneficial. Socialism is based on coveting other's goods, theft, and violent coercion.

NMG26
08-07-2012, 03:38
http://www.moonbattery.com/Socialism_by_miniamericanflags.jpg

I don't think Jesus would approve :whistling:

Good point.

Jesus was telling the rich man to voluntarily give his riches and to follow him.

The message of Jesus has evolved into many things. The gun to the head would be the threat of hell by some interpretations.

Many Christians believe that Jesus did teach eternal torment, sighting the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazerus.
I don't believe it.
I tend to see all things having to do with heaven and hell as being present spiritual realities, rather then something promised for the future.

High-Gear
08-07-2012, 04:05
http://www.moonbattery.com/Socialism_by_miniamericanflags.jpg

I don't think Jesus would approve :whistling:

Do as I say or burn forever in hell? Sounds like Socialism.
Remember, there was no hell before Jesus...Jews just die, no eternal fire.:whistling:

Bren
08-07-2012, 04:28
I've seen Christians call others "Socialist" several times on this forum. I'v asked the question and not recieved an answer up to this point.

Wasn't Christ a Socialist?

I believe he advocated voluntarily giving to the poor, not government ownership of resources. That is not socialism - in fact, the prosperity for charity is pretty much limited to capitalism. So, "no," he wasn't (if he actually existed).


Doesn't "Capitalism" stem from coveting other's goods?

Really? As opposed to socialism in which we form a government that takes the good of others, by force, and gives them to everybody? Yeah, right.


Didn't Jesus tell people to sell all they owned and give it to those in need?


Agaian - that is charity. Charity is neither a "socialist" trait, no common among them. Why would they need voluntary charity when they have forced redistribution of wealth?

Didn't Jesus say it would be easier for a wealthy man to ride a camel through the eye of a needle then to enter the gates of heaven?

How does capitalist = "wealthy? Capitalism just means the freedom for individuals to own the resources used to produce and for people to trade and contract freely. The guy who comes over in a van and fixes your plumbing is a capitalist, as is the guy who mows your lawn, but they may not be rich.

Certainly, capitalism offers the freedom and potential to be wealthy, but only through voluntary exchanges and your own effort. For example, a poor member of the proletariat can start with no money and an 8th grade education and become an "evil capitalist" just by using his own hard work and intelligenece to start a chain of restaurants, like Wendy's. Or a poor kid growing up in the great depression might work his way through college doing odd jobs and working for food, but instead of complaining that the government never gives him what he needs, he'd get a degree and start working in a store and do such a good job that he'd end up owning his store, like Walmart, for example.

How did the political party of the super wealthy, and corporate profits become synonymous with the party of god? [url]

Your education is lacking. Why start a thread about capitalism, if all you know about it is less than you could learn from a single chapter in an economics textbook? Becase some hippie who didn't want to be responsible for himself told you capitalism was bad and involved "the super wealthy, and corporate profits" does not make it so. In fact, it's a pretty ignorant opinion that shows no understanding of even the dictionary definition of "capitalism."

High-Gear
08-07-2012, 05:19
Bren,

Don't jump to conclusions about my knowledge or lack thereof. Just because I post a topic does not necessarily mean I agree with it, sometimes I post to spur discussion.

Now I did not once say capitalism was bad. I think when profits are put before people that is bad. When a profitable plant is closed and a community is destroyed because relocating the facility overseas could post a slightly higher profit margin due to exploiting people in poverty, that is bad.

What I did say is capitalism does today depend on coveting goods. Keeping up with the Jones' next door is alive and well. If that were not the case no one would buy a Rolex, when a Timex keeps better time. I don't have a problem with that, I was just pointing out it does go against biblical law.

Now, I would say the Church was, and in some places still is, a form of government. The church demands 10% of its members income, to redistribute to the poor. This is done under threat of excommunication, which equates to an eternity of hell fire. Could that not be considered socialism?

Kingarthurhk
08-07-2012, 05:27
Do as I say or burn forever in hell? Sounds like Socialism.
Remember, there was no hell before Jesus...Jews just die, no eternal fire.:whistling:

People don't burn forever and aren't tortured forever. That is a pagan concept that is not borne out by scripture. There is a destruction by fire, but not an everlasting burning/torture by fire.

High-Gear
08-07-2012, 05:31
People don't burn forever and aren't tortured forever. That is a pagan concept that is not borne out by scripture. There is a destruction by fire, but not an everlasting burning/torture by fire.

That is the position of your church I guess, but not all. I think the point still stands, you will be destroyed by fire is still a threat is it not?

Woofie
08-07-2012, 09:06
People don't burn forever and aren't tortured forever. That is a pagan concept that is not borne out by scripture. There is a destruction by fire, but not an everlasting burning/torture by fire.

Depends on your denomination. One of the bigger local Baptist churches around me runs a program every year aimed at elementary and middle school age kids called "Heaven's Gates and Hell's Flames." It's goal is to terrify kids into church.

Geko45
08-07-2012, 09:20
The only clear model of government put forth in the bible is a (somewhat) benevolent monarchy.

whoflungdo
08-07-2012, 09:23
Bren,

Don't jump to conclusions about my knowledge or lack thereof. Just because I post a topic does not necessarily mean I agree with it, sometimes I post to spur discussion.

Now I did not once say capitalism was bad. I think when profits are put before people that is bad. When a profitable plant is closed and a community is destroyed because relocating the facility overseas could post a slightly higher profit margin due to exploiting people in poverty, that is bad.

What I did say is capitalism does today depend on coveting goods. Keeping up with the Jones' next door is alive and well. If that were not the case no one would buy a Rolex, when a Timex keeps better time. I don't have a problem with that, I was just pointing out it does go against biblical law.

Now, I would say the Church was, and in some places still is, a form of government. The church demands 10% of its members income, to redistribute to the poor. This is done under threat of excommunication, which equates to an eternity of hell fire. Could that not be considered socialism?


That is all anyone needs to know about you and your stance against capitalism.

Limedust
08-07-2012, 09:25
For your information, Christians have given more to the poor than atheists. Hec, for church purposes alone....we are supposed to give 10% (tithe).

In general, I notice that my conservative friends tend to give to charity more than my liberal friends. That's my own fact.

If any of you here give more than 15% of your income (after tax) to charity....then you can quote the Bible's verses and be prideful about it. If not, you need to shut up.


Yes, I am Christian. Are you?

Nope. And how many liberal friends do you have . . . the token? And of course Christians give more to the poor than atheists; there are many more of them. If you're saying per capita let's have some proof.

Isn't pride a sin?

Schabesbert
08-07-2012, 09:36
Depends on your denomination. One of the bigger local Baptist churches around me runs a program every year aimed at elementary and middle school age kids called "Heaven's Gates and Hell's Flames." It's goal is to terrify kids into church.
Can't speak for this Baptist program, but you're either mischaracterizing or misunderstanding the concept.

Hell is a consequence of our sins. God doesn't want that end for anyone, but He won't force Himself on you.

When a doctor tells you "take this medicine or you will die," is he terrorizing you into taking the medicine? Or is he being loving and caring?

rohanreginald
08-07-2012, 09:40
I think the op is confusing charity with socialism. Jesus never said give up your possessions for me to divide evenly to everyone else.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Bren
08-07-2012, 09:47
Bren,

Don't jump to conclusions about my knowledge or lack thereof. Just because I post a topic does not necessarily mean I agree with it, sometimes I post to spur discussion.


Your discussion spurring topic amounts to little more than misunderstanding the basic definition of capitalism.

I think when profits are put before people that is bad. When a profitable plant is closed and a community is destroyed because relocating the facility overseas could post a slightly higher profit margin due to exploiting people in poverty, that is bad.

Fortunately, that is not an effect of "capitalism" that is an effect of "socialism."

Why do you think it's more profitable to relocate overseas? Because of government interference with free trade in this country - minimum wages, insurance laws, a library full of labor law, environmental laws, pricing laws, competition laws, etc. None of those are apsects of a free market - they are aspects of a "somewhat socialist" economy.

In a free market, the owner of a business would contract with a potential employee for exactly what that employee requires to provide the labor the employer needs - there is not other possible outcome. If another employer competing for the same employee offers more, the price of labor goes up. If other people offer equal labor for less, the price of labor goes down. That's why we have unions manufacturing artificial labor shortages for employees in industries that require little education or qualification to start. Otherwise the labor would be cheap, as would the products.

void *
08-07-2012, 10:59
When a doctor tells you "take this medicine or you will die," is he terrorizing you into taking the medicine? Or is he being loving and caring?

I suppose that would depend on whether or not the doctor had previously chosen to take an action that would set everything up so that you would have to take the medicine or die, with full knowledge that taking that action would set everything up that way.

If this doctor is just offering you medicine that will help, with knowledge that otherwise, you will die to circumstances beyond his control, then yeah, he's being caring.

If he shot you up with a drug that would give you the fatal disease a year or so earlier, and is now telling you 'take this medicine or you will die', that's a whole different story.

Edit: It would also depend on whether or not you actually have a disease that will kill you.

Woofie
08-07-2012, 14:30
Can't speak for this Baptist program, but you're either mischaracterizing or misunderstanding the concept.

Hell is a consequence of our sins. God doesn't want that end for anyone, but He won't force Himself on you.

When a doctor tells you "take this medicine or you will die," is he terrorizing you into taking the medicine? Or is he being loving and caring?

When there is as much evidence behind the idea that sinners go to hell as there is behind medical science, I'll accept your analogy.

Telling kids they're going to hell for not loving God in the right way is a scare tactic, nothing more.

Schabesbert
08-07-2012, 15:20
When there is as much evidence behind the idea that sinners go to hell as there is behind medical science, I'll accept your analogy.
Sinners don't necessarily go to hell; unrepentant sinners may.

Telling kids they're going to hell for not loving God in the right way is a scare tactic, nothing more.
Maybe. But that's not what should be taught to kids.

Norske
08-07-2012, 15:22
In Jesus's day, Religion was pretty much the same as "government", and it was all pretty much Monarchy.

When you boil it down, even so-called "modern" systems like "communism" are simply another form of monarchy. Just different names for those within the various strata of the society and whether they were the exploiters or the exploited.

There were fewer "classes"; you were either part of the "elite", including the religious/governmental elite and therefore rich, or you were not and thus either a slave or a peon.

No "middle class".

I think that if one tried to describe "communism" to Jesus, he would just say that that is just the sort of monarchy he had always been familiar with during his lifetime.

If you tried to describe "capitalism" to him, you would probably only get a blank look from him, as he would have had no frame of reference as to what you were trying to describe.

The rich and powerful exploited the poor and helpless, and the poor were there to be exploited by the rich and powerful.

Geko45
08-07-2012, 15:25
In Jesus's day, Religion was pretty much the same as "government", and it was all pretty much Monarchy.

That's something most Christians don't like to admit. Democracy was never been put forward as a model for government in the bible. It was always a monarchy and if you were lucky, a somehwhat benevolent one. If you weren't, well...

If you tried to describe "capitalism" to him, you would only get a blank look from him, as he would have had no frame of reference as to what you were trying to describe.

He'd probably start overturning tables...

Schabesbert
08-07-2012, 15:28
I suppose that would depend on whether or not the doctor had previously chosen to take an action that would set everything up so that you would have to take the medicine or die, with full knowledge that taking that action would set everything up that way.

If this doctor is just offering you medicine that will help, with knowledge that otherwise, you will die to circumstances beyond his control, then yeah, he's being caring.

If he shot you up with a drug that would give you the fatal disease a year or so earlier, and is now telling you 'take this medicine or you will die', that's a whole different story.

That's an awfully poor analogy. I can't tell if you don't understand the Church's teaching or if you're purposefully distorting it.

God didn't take any action to cause us to sin (although He did foreknow that some would sin).

Separation from God is a natural consequence of unrepented sin. God is trying to spare us from that consequence; we need to cooperate in that venture.

1847 "God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."116
(St. Augustine, Sermo 169,11,13:PL 38,923, as quoted in the Catechism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm))

Why? The same reason that your wife cannot love you without HER willing to do so.

Schabesbert
08-07-2012, 15:32
In Jesus's day, Religion was pretty much the same as "government", and it was all pretty much Monarchy.
Not really. In fact, many of the people were really upset over the usurpation of the religious hierarchy AND the governmental hierarchy by the Romans.

The Essenes, in particular, who may very well be the proto-Christians

void *
08-07-2012, 15:39
God didn't take any action to cause us to sin (although He did foreknow that some would sin).

At the time he created us, did he do so knowing that we would sin? (usual caveat about writing in a manner that holds certain posits as true for purposes of discussion).

Does an all knowing, all powerful, all benevolent being not have a choice as to how he creates whatever beings he creates?

Does such a being have no choice in what punishment for sin is?

If I know beforehand that if I dig a pit in my backyard and tell my kids that they should stay away from the pit because they will fall in and die if they don't, and I furthermore know beforehand that they will still get too close to the pit and die despite the fact that I have told them, do I or do I not have at least some responsibility for their deaths when they fall to their deaths in the pit I dug?

Schabesbert
08-07-2012, 15:42
At the time he created us, did he do so knowing that we would sin? (usual caveat about writing in a manner that holds certain posits as true for purposes of discussion).

Does an all knowing, all powerful, all benevolent being not have a choice as to how he creates whatever beings he creates?
Not if He wants to accomplish the goal of having moral, loving people who do so of their own free will.

Does such a being have no choice in what punishment for sin is?
You keep using the word "punishment" when in this context it's better understood as "consequence."

If I know beforehand that if I dig a pit in my backyard and tell my kids that they should stay away from the pit because they will fall in and die if they don't, and I furthermore know beforehand that they will still get too close to the pit and die despite the fact that I have told them, do I or do I not have at least some responsibility for their deaths when they fall into the pit I dug?
Yes, because you've dug a pit. God didn't dig the pit. We did.

void *
08-07-2012, 15:44
Yes, because you've dug a pit. God didn't dig the pit. We did.

So god created everything, but didn't dig the pit. Isn't the pit something?

void *
08-07-2012, 15:44
You keep using the word "punishment" when in this context it's better understood as "consequence."

'punishment' or 'consequence', do you claim that an all powerful being does not have the power to choose what the consequence will be?

Schabesbert
08-07-2012, 15:45
So god created everything, but didn't dig the pit. Isn't the pit something?
Yeah. But WE dig our own pits. God allows us, but WE do it. That "free will" thing.

Schabesbert
08-07-2012, 15:47
'punishment' or 'consequence', do you claim that an all powerful being does not have the power to choose what the consequence will be?
Sure.
I think you need to study about what is meant by "all-powerful." There are plenty of things God can't do, chief among them is the He can't deny His own nature.

This is a subset of that.

Woofie
08-07-2012, 15:47
Maybe. But that's not what should be taught to kids.

I agree.

void *
08-07-2012, 15:49
Sure.
I think you need to study about what is meant by "all-powerful." There are plenty of things God can't do, chief among them is the He can't deny His own nature.

So it's in god's nature to send people to eternal torment when they sin, rather than, say, ending the existence of those who don't make the cut of being forgiven?

Schabesbert
08-07-2012, 16:01
So it's in god's nature to send people to eternal torment when they sin, rather than, say, ending the existence of those who don't make the cut of being forgiven?
Not at all. WE send ourselves to hell.
We are eternal creatures. We will exist no matter what.

Have you ever read C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce?

void *
08-07-2012, 16:04
Not at all. WE send ourselves to hell.
We are eternal creatures. We will exist no matter what.

And an all powerful deity cannot create us such that we are only eternal creatures if we make the cut?

a) God made hell, yes or no?
b) God made us, knowing that we would send ourselves to hell, yes or no?

I do not grok how having it in your 'nature' to send people to hell somehow means that's benevolent, in much the same way that i don't see how a breeder having it in their nature to throw the culls into a pit of spikes, rather than killing them as painlessly as possible, excuses the breeder.

Brucev
08-07-2012, 16:11
Re: OP...

Socialism is a method of economic organization as is its more bloody cousin communism. Capitalism is the economic organizing principle generally found throughout the U.S. There are Christians who are comfortable with capitalism as a economic organizing principle, and there are Christians who are comfortable with socialism as a economic organizing principle. Doubtless the same is true of people who are atheist, agnostics and even demokrats.

Jesus was not a socialist. Jesus was not a capitalist. For most of his life, Jesus was a τέκτονος, i.e., a craft worker, either in wood, metal or more likely stone. He lived within the realities of the first century Greco-Roman era in which capitalism was the norm of economic organization. Of course it was not the simplistic free-trade do as you please pattern so lauded by libertarians, etc.

It cannot be said that Capitalism is based on wanting to have what another man owns. Capitalism is only a means of organizing economic exchange. That is all. Any misuse is entirely the consequence of the evil that lurks in the heart of all men.

Jesus called his followers to a ultimate ethic of life that did not focus on maximizing one's personal property, etc., but rather on fully realizing His call in ones own personal life and relationships. When the disciples were first sent out to prepare the way for Jesus ministry, they were told to be utterly dependent on the good will of people. This reflected the popularity that Jesus and his followers at that time enjoyed among the general population. When he later sent them forth for the second time, that earlier popularity was now replaced by actual threat from the temple and Roman authorities. The disciples sent forth on that second occasion were told to prepare for what they would need for the trip as they would not be able to rely on the good will of residents.

Jesus use the famous image of a camel passing through the eye of a needle to demonstrate that any man who was devoted more to money/wealth than His Kingdom would find it nigh on to impossible to "enter the gates of heaven." It is a reality that is true of anyone who places anything, including politics, patriotism, family or even personal free individual choice before commitment to the Lord.

The party of the super wealthy and corporate profits is far removed from God. The same is true of the Republicans. Neither party is anointed of God, nor should anyone expect them to be. They are merely secular political parties, that is all. Nothing more and nothing less. For the most part the demokratic party exhibits a hostility to the Christian faith when they are not able to coop that faith for their own political benefit. This has been especially demonstrated on issues such as abortion. It has also been seen in dealing with issues such as economic equity, education, war, etc. The Republicans have found Christian faith to be problematic when dealing with issues such as health, economic equity, hunger, education, war, etc.

hogfish
08-07-2012, 16:29
In Jesus's day, Religion was pretty much the same as "government", and it was all pretty much Monarchy.

When you boil it down, even so-called "modern" systems like "communism" are simply another form of monarchy. Just different names for those within the various strata of the society and whether they were the exploiters or the exploited.

There were fewer "classes"; you were either part of the "elite", including the religious/governmental elite and therefore rich, or you were not and thus either a slave or a peon.

No "middle class".

I think that if one tried to describe "communism" to Jesus, he would just say that that is just the sort of monarchy he had always been familiar with during his lifetime.

If you tried to describe "capitalism" to him, you would probably only get a blank look from him, as he would have had no frame of reference as to what you were trying to describe.

The rich and powerful exploited the poor and helpless, and the poor were there to be exploited by the rich and powerful.

I think there's something wrong here. Wasn't it basically a capitalist system with a king and some sort of senate as the governing powers? Not sure that Jesus knew "comunism" as such.

I might be misunderstanding your post, though. :dunno:

:wavey:

Added: It might have been 'democracy' He wasn't familiar with. :-)

Kingarthurhk
08-07-2012, 16:44
Depends on your denomination. One of the bigger local Baptist churches around me runs a program every year aimed at elementary and middle school age kids called "Heaven's Gates and Hell's Flames." It's goal is to terrify kids into church.

I has been a mechanism of the medieval church as a fear tactic for some time.

The truth, however, is completely different.


http://www.helltruth.com/q-a.aspx

Everything you wanted to know about hell, but were afraid to ask...

Limedust
08-07-2012, 17:13
Your discussion spurring topic amounts to little more than misunderstanding the basic definition of capitalism.



Fortunately, that is not an effect of "capitalism" that is an effect of "socialism."

Why do you think it's more profitable to relocate overseas? Because of government interference with free trade in this country - minimum wages, insurance laws, a library full of labor law, environmental laws, pricing laws, competition laws, etc. None of those are apsects of a free market - they are aspects of a "somewhat socialist" economy.

In a free market, the owner of a business would contract with a potential employee for exactly what that employee requires to provide the labor the employer needs - there is not other possible outcome. If another employer competing for the same employee offers more, the price of labor goes up. If other people offer equal labor for less, the price of labor goes down. That's why we have unions manufacturing artificial labor shortages for employees in industries that require little education or qualification to start. Otherwise the labor would be cheap, as would the products.

Good post (really, not trolling or being sarcastic).

Agreed . . . so long as there are no other factors that impinge upon the theoretical framework of capitalism. We are however, dealing with people and not a formula. That's usually where these things tend to break down in both directions.

Anyhow, oddly enough, the teleology of capitalism isn't particularly reassuring; in fact, capitalism leads to the one thing that many here seem to fear . . . centralized and efficient control. After all, the goal of any good capitalist is monopoly.

Norske
08-07-2012, 17:33
Not really. In fact, many of the people were really upset over the usurpation of the religious hierarchy AND the governmental hierarchy by the Romans.

The Essenes, in particular, who may very well be the proto-Christians

If you do not think that religious and governmental authority were not one and the same throughout most of the last 10 or 12,000 years of human history, I suggest you re-read the story of Moses as an exercise in conning a couple of million down-trodden troglodytes out from under the rule of Pharaoh on the lying promise of a newer, better life, then marching them up and down mountains and deserts and killing most of them, then using their children, who by that time did not remember any life under Pharaoh, to invade the ancestral lands and establishing a new Kingdom named "Israel". :faint:

The Romans had usurped the Jewish Religious Hierarchy's secular authority handed down to them by Moses at swordpoint, but left them their religious authority, so far as that went. Which was not very far. Without governmental authority, a religion is toothless.

The Jewish religious hierarchy viewed Jesus as a threat to their little remaining religious authority, and then conned the Romans into believing that Jesus was also a threat to Roman secular authority, and they nailed him to the cross for it.

New religious schisms, and new religions, are always a threat to the authority of any existing theocratic/governmental systems.

This is why such new schisms and new religions are always persecuted by the established religion.

They threaten authority.

Remember that 9/11/01 was an exercise by religious fanatics who view the western concepts of "separation of church and state" to literally be the work of the Devil. That a single theocratic/governmental system; theirs; Islam, is Allah-ordained to be the "proper" governmental system for all of mankind. And they will unite all of us under Sharia, or kill us all trying.

Our best weapon against theocratic despotism is insistance on universal separation of church and state. Whether Islam, or any other religion for that matter.

Follow any religion you like.

For that matter, all secular government must respect all of the rights of the individual, or that government loses its right to exercise any authority over it's society.

But no religion is to have any sort of governmental authority.

Religion may not make, interpret, nor enforce law. :dunno:

Norske
08-07-2012, 17:45
I think there's something wrong here. Wasn't it basically a capitalist system with a king and some sort of senate as the governing powers? Not sure that Jesus knew "comunism" as such.

I might be misunderstanding your post, though. :dunno:

:wavey:

Added: It might have been 'democracy' He wasn't familiar with. :-)

A capitalist system allows the individual to acquire -- and keep -- wealth and rise to higher status within the society.

Monarchial systems do not.

"A place for everyone, and everyone in his or her place"

"If it was good enough for your father, it is good enough for you, you uppity peasant! So get back to humping that load on your back and I don't want to hear anything more about this absurd "wheel" idea of yours or I'll stripe up your back with this whip!" :steamed:

Peasants/serfs/slaves at the bottom

A military class above them, keeping them in line.

An elite class including religious and other "nobles" lording it over the military and peasant classes.

At the top, a King/Emporer/Pharoah/God-King/Fuhrer/Chairman of the Party or whatever the dictator at the top happens to be calling himself at any given time.

That has been the pattern for most of human history.

The names for the classes and those within them might change.

The pattern of the society usually does not.

:crying:

NMG26
08-07-2012, 17:55
A capitalist system allows the individual to acquire -- and keep -- wealth and rise to higher status within the society.

Monarchial systems do not.

"A place for everyone, and everyone in his or her place"

"If it was good enough for your father, it is good enough for you, you uppity peasant! So get back to humping that load on your back and I don't want to hear anything more about this absurd "wheel" idea of yours or I'll stripe up your back with this whip!" :steamed:

Peasants/serfs/slaves at the bottom

A military class above them, keeping them in line.

An elite class including religious and other "nobles" lording it over the military and peasant classes.

At the top, a King/Emporer/Pharoah/God-King/Fuhrer/Chairman of the Party or whatever the dictator at the top happens to be calling himself at any given time.

That has been the pattern for most of human history.

The names for the classes and those within them might change.

The pattern of the society usually does not.

:crying:

Thank you.

Kingarthurhk
08-07-2012, 19:08
Not at all. WE send ourselves to hell.
We are eternal creatures. We will exist no matter what.

Have you ever read C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce?

I've read the Bible and it does not support your position.

Woofie
08-08-2012, 09:34
I has been a mechanism of the medieval church as a fear tactic for some time.

The truth, however, is completely different.


http://www.helltruth.com/q-a.aspx

Everything you wanted to know about hell, but were afraid to ask...

You've showed me that site before. From what I understand that is only the viewpoint of the SDAs. The Baptists have a different interpretation.

Even if your interpretation of scripture is the correct one, it doesn't change the fact that the Baptists are out there scaring little kids to church.

hogfish
08-08-2012, 15:31
A capitalist system allows the individual to acquire -- and keep -- wealth and rise to higher status within the society.

Monarchial systems do not.

"A place for everyone, and everyone in his or her place"

"If it was good enough for your father, it is good enough for you, you uppity peasant! So get back to humping that load on your back and I don't want to hear anything more about this absurd "wheel" idea of yours or I'll stripe up your back with this whip!" :steamed:

Peasants/serfs/slaves at the bottom

A military class above them, keeping them in line.

An elite class including religious and other "nobles" lording it over the military and peasant classes.

At the top, a King/Emporer/Pharoah/God-King/Fuhrer/Chairman of the Party or whatever the dictator at the top happens to be calling himself at any given time.

That has been the pattern for most of human history.

The names for the classes and those within them might change.

The pattern of the society usually does not.

:crying:

I understand. Thanks. :)