American's right when it comes to Christianity and Capitalism.

[RGacky3]

Capitalism is not without its faults, and yes there is a need for regulation of it to prevent a variety of social ills.

However, it creates more prosperity, not just for the uber-rich, but also for the ordinary working person, than any other system in history.

The Pilgrims at Jamestown originally attempted to "hold all things in common"... and nearly starved. Then they divided up the cleared land into plots, assigned a plot to each household, and told them what they produced was theirs to do with as they will... and they prospered so well they held a feast and invited the natives, and that was the origin of Thanksgiving.

No nation that has embraced communal ownership of all production, and "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" has prospered. The USSR was a mess that collapsed financially; China would have gone down the same road if they had not started mixing some capitalism in with their communism.

In the 1st Century, communitarianism was a more just and productive choice than the existing master-slave economy no doubt... but today things are very different.

No, the Pilgrims did not hold all things in common, they we're a subsidiary of the "london corporation," their colony was chartered, it was NOT a cooperative at all.

No nation? The USSR was basically one big corporation, not an actual communal society.

Capitalism has in the past created much prosperity, or allowed it (with the help of social democratic reforms), but now it does more damage than good, and creates more poverty than it eliviates.

 

[RGacky3]

Translation from Progressive: The freedom to have a job if someone out there can offer it.

Apart from any meta-Marxist idiocies, once again: Is freedom of choice "a Christian value"?

Depends what you mean by that ... Find me a scripture.

 

[Medusa]

some may even claim jesus was libertarian

l cant decide if it is ignorance or stupidity

jesus wont let you enter his paradise l think

you already live your own paradise in this damned world

:blowup:

 

[ecofarm]

Without capitalism, the state could de-fund the church and it ceases to exist. Would it be good for the church to rely on the state for its existence?

 

[RGacky3]

Without capitalism, the state could de-fund the church and it ceases to exist. Would it be good for the church to rely on the state for its existence?

No .... The Church doesn't rely on Capitalists or buisness to exist either .... It isn't either or.

 

[ecofarm]

No .... The Church doesn't rely on Capitalists or buisness to exist either .... It isn't either or.

Hello?

In a communist (non-capitalist) system, the church would rely upon the state for its very existence.

This is very simple. Try reading it slowly.

 

[RGacky3]

Hello?

In a communist (non-capitalist) system, the church would rely upon the state for its very existence.

This is very simple. Try reading it slowly.

It's simply but it's simply wrong .... the church doesn't rely on Capitalism for its existance, nor would it rely on the state.

Also the alternative to Capitalism in'st just state communism, you have all sorts of alternatives.

 

[ecofarm]

It's simply but it's simply wrong .... the church doesn't rely on Capitalism for its existance, nor would it rely on the state.

Also the alternative to Capitalism in'st just state communism, you have all sorts of alternatives.

No private property = no church (except as provided by the state). If private property ceases to exist, so does the church.

 

[RGacky3]

No private property = no church (except as provided by the state). If private property ceases to exist, so does the church.

Says who? If you have the commons, of coarse people can build a church ... Also being anti-Capitalist doesn't mean total destruction of all private property ... and it most DEFINATELY doesn't mean the state owns everything.

 

[ecofarm]

Says who? If you have the commons, of coarse people can build a church ... Also being anti-Capitalist doesn't mean total destruction of all private property ... and it most DEFINATELY doesn't mean the state owns everything.

If the state owns everything, it decides if the church exists. As history clearly demonstrates, you don't have very good odds there.

Capitalism means private property and savings. Without that, no church.

 

[RGacky3]

If the state owns everything, it decides if the church exists. As history clearly demonstrates, you don't have very good odds there.

Capitalism means private property and savings. Without that, no church.

Are you even reading my posts ..... NO ONE argues that the state should own everything ... It's a strawman ... anti-Capitalists are not saying "the state should own everything" neither are social-justice christians, no one says that.

 

[ecofarm]

Are you even reading my posts ..... NO ONE argues that the state should own everything ... It's a strawman ... anti-Capitalists are not saying "the state should own everything" neither are social-justice christians, no one says that.

So, you do want some capitalism. You agree that, without capitalism, the church would not exist. Good. Then we can see that the church needs capitalism or the whole cross thing goes buhbye.

 

[RGacky3]

So, you do want some capitalism. You agree that, without capitalism, the church would not exist. Good. Then we can see that the church needs capitalism or the whole cross thing goes buhbye.

No ... I don't agree ... you don't seem to understand that the alternative to capitalism IS NOT state control .... Christianity started under a non capitalist system, and existed for most of its history without capitalism.

You don't need Capitalism for Churches .... it's simply a strawman because you assume that without capitalism you have automatic total state control, which is total nonsense.

 

[ecofarm]

No ... I don't agree ... you don't seem to understand that the alternative to capitalism IS NOT state control

Ok then, what is it? Jesus control? I don't think so.

 

[RGacky3]

Ok then, what is it? Jesus control? I don't think so.

There are tons of different options, you have feudal stwardship (as in the middle ages), the commons, democratic control, community control, you can have private property for somethings and not for others ....

Dude you had christianity around for CENTURIES before capitalism came .... you're EMPIRICALLY wrong.

 

[ecofarm]

There are tons of different options, you have feudal stwardship (as in the middle ages), the commons, democratic control, community control, you can have private property for somethings and not for others ....

Apparently, you've no idea what capitalism, or the other things you've listed, means.

Feudal = state control
The commons = state control, or anarchy
Democratic control is still state control
Community control is still state control
Then you abandon your entire argument and say "well, we could have some capitalism", as if you realized that your argument is garbage.


The alternative to capitalism IS state control. Your misconstrued fantasies do not qualify as options.

Dude you had christianity around for CENTURIES before capitalism came .... you're EMPIRICALLY wrong.

When it was used by a totalitarian state for control of the people. Sure, like Iran today. That's an option. :roll:

 

[RGacky3]

Apparently, you've no idea what capitalism, or the other things you've listed, means.

Feudal = state control
The commons = state control, or anarchy
Democratic control is still state control
Community control is still state control
Then you abandon your entire argument and say "well, we could have some capitalism", as if you realized that your argument is garbage.

The alternative to capitalism IS state control. Your misconstrued fantasies do not qualify as options.

No Feudal control is NOT state control, no one actually "owns" the land.
The commons is NOT state control ... it's the commons, you can and often do have the commons without a state.
The smae with democratic and community control, you had ALL those things without the state in history.

When it was used by the totalitarian state for control of the people. Sure, like Iran today. That's an option. :roll:

No ... You really don't know the history of christianity do you?, It became the state religion of rome after it had been around for aobut 400 years, then after Rome collapsed it wasn't dependant on the state for its authority at all.

You have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

 

[LowDown]

That definition of Capitalism can mean anything.

Capitalism is really an economy that is privitized and for profit. Capitalism ISN'T spontaneous, look at it's history, it took decades of bloodshed to make the commons privitized and ready for profit making.

Plus I love your definition of social justice, it isn't taking "YOUR money" and giving it to us ... (thats what the financial industry does), it's making a system, a set of rules for hte economy, that benefit everyone, especially the poor.

Christianity isn't distorted by "social justice" it IS social justice. It's in it throughout the scriptures.

BTW I love how you say it's "Envy" when the apostles commanded the people to sell their possessions and hold everything in common was it "envy" When GOd commanded the Israalites to make sure the poor had access to what they needed all the time was it envy`?

WHen a rich person wants to maximize profits by laying off people and making the rest work harder, or basically loansharking, it's just them bieng good buisinessmen ... when they want to privitize energy so they can profit off poor people trying to stay warm in the winter it's just buisiness.

If I or other people of conscience want to make sure that the poor are taken care of, and that certain things stay in the commons so that we all have access to it it's somehow envy!!!!

Read the bible buddy.

What an absurd notion of history. Mankind started off with a commons and then it was privatized? Nonsense. Mankind started off with a natural notion of ownership and possession. We see that from ancient burial sites in which a person's possessions are interred with them. It was envious thieves who came along later and said, "What's yours is mine."

Starting with the natural notion that what people have belongs to them and add rules that forbid theft, aggression, violence, and so on. In other words, individual rights and a rule of law, and capitalism emerges spontaneously. People freely associate and trade. That's all there is to it.

As for the rest, I don't know how you can make the transition from the kind of charity demonstrated in the New Testament and "charity" by taxing people under pain of coercion by force of arms and threat of imprisonment and giving the money to others. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that justifies that transition, not even the foray into communal living in Acts. The Bible expressly forbids the kind of envy that that "social justice" crowd embodies. Do not covet what your neighbor has!

 

[RGacky3]

What an absurd notion of history. Mankind started off with a commons and then it was privatized? Nonsense. Mankind started off with a natural notion of ownership and possession. We see that from ancient burial sites in which a person's possessions are interred with them. It was envious thieves who came along later and said, "What's yours is mine."

Starting with the natural notion that what people have belongs to them and add rules that forbid theft, aggression, violence, and so on. In other words, individual rights and a rule of law, and capitalism emerges spontaneously. People freely associate and trade. That's all there is to it.

As for the rest, I don't know how you can make the transition from the kind of charity demonstrated in the New Testament and "charity" by taxing people under pain of coercion by force of arms and threat of imprisonment and giving the money to others. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that justifies that transition, not even the foray into communal living in Acts. The Bible expressly forbids the kind of envy that that "social justice" crowd embodies. Do not covet what your neighbor has!

No actually, burial sites don't show that they had a private property economy, anthroplogists and historians have shown that for most of mankinds history, there was no private property, it was the commons, people had possessions yes, but that isn't the same as private property.

Private property came with the state, the state came and fenced off what was the commons and said "this belongs to so and so." Capitalism DOESN'T emerge spontaneously, look at history, capitalism comes with the development of the modern state.

As for the rest, actually READ the rest. You haven't responded to anything I said, other than just repeating yourself.

aslo read this http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/156925-social-justice.html, I lay out the argument there, if you think you're right, then make the case from scripture and deal with mine.

 

[soot]

It actually does, Capitalism demands that you maximize profits, it's a system where the vast majority of the economy is run not for the common good, or social need, but for profit, in competition and for private gain, things that if left in the commons could be used for the common good are privitized and instead used for profit.

There's nothing about Christianity that requires a MINimization of profit.

And there's nothing to Capitalism that requires that you KEEP profit.

And remember, we're talking about an ECONOMIC system, not a SOCIAL system.

In a perfectly "Christian" society an economic system that requires and produces the greatest profit then allows those who "own" that profit to take it and do with it the greatest good.

Look at it at a very basic level.

Can I do more "good" (if I so chose) with $1 or with $1,000,000?

If the answer is $1,000,000, and I see no way that it wouldn't be, then Capitalism provides the best means (maximized profit) for the Christian to reach a given end (doing good).

That's why I say that people (even and especially those who would call themselves Christian), rather than a economic system, are at odds with Christianity.

If people choose to turn their profits toward selfish ends, that isn't Capitalism's fault.

 

[RGacky3]

There's nothing about Christianity that requires a minimization of profit.

And there's nothing to Capitalism that requires that you KEEP profit.

And remember, we're talking about an ECONOMIC system, not a SOCIAL system.

In a perfectly "Christian" society an economic system that requires and produces the greatest profit then allows those who "own" that profit to take it and do with it the greatest good.

Look at it at a very basic level.

Can I do more "good" (if I so chose) with $1 or with $1,000,000?

If the answer is $1,000,000, and I see no way that it wouldn't be, then Capitalism provides the best means (maximized profit) for the Christian to reach a given end (doing good).

That why I say that people, rather than a economic system, are at odds with Christianity.

If people choose to turn their profits toward selfish ends, that isn't Capitalism's fault.

Strawman ... of coarse Christianity doesn't require minimization of profit, nothing does, no one does.

Also Sure Capitalism doesn't require you to keep profit .... So what ... it still requries that you MAXIMISE profit which puts people in poverty that don't need to be there.

A perfectly "Christian" society is one where the economy runs for the good of everyone, not one that makes (potentially) benevolent plutcrats out of some and beggers out of the rest, hell we HAVE EXAMPLES IN THE BIBLE, of economic systems, the mosaic law was HIGHY redistributive and communal, the first century church was proto-communistic.

Of coasre you can do more "good" with $1,000,000, so what? The goal of an economic system isn't whether or not YOU (as an individual) cna do the most good, I'd rather have a system where everyone can do good, where everyone has the opportunity, not just a few plutocrats, and where the poor didn't have to rely on philanthropy (biblical charity, as I've said a million times, is NOT philantrhopy, it's "agape.").

 

[RGacky3]

If people choose to turn their profits toward selfish ends, that isn't Capitalism's fault.

That's like saying that Stalin's horrible reign wasn't the fault of Soviet Communism, it's just that Stalin was a bad dude .... common now.

 

[soot]

That's like saying that Stalin's horrible reign wasn't the fault of Soviet Communism, it's just that Stalin was a bad dude .... common now.

Soviet communism wasn't an ECONOMIC system.

It borrowed from the Marxist-Lennist conception of the Socialist economic system but was in itself an economic, political, and social system.

So you're heaping politics and society (and in Stalin's case I would add cult-of-personality sociopathic totalitarianism) on top of an economic system and then saying that the economic system was "bad".

Again, an economic system is just an economic system, not good, not bad, pretty much wholly indifferent.

Once you start adding in "human" factors (politics, society, culture, religion) you're diluting the qualities of the economic system as a unique "entity".

 

[head of joaquin]

There's nothing about Christianity that requires a MINimization of profit.

And there's nothing to Capitalism that requires that you KEEP profit.

And remember, we're talking about an ECONOMIC system, not a SOCIAL system.

In a perfectly "Christian" society an economic system that requires and produces the greatest profit then allows those who "own" that profit to take it and do with it the greatest good.

Look at it at a very basic level.

Can I do more "good" (if I so chose) with $1 or with $1,000,000?

If the answer is $1,000,000, and I see no way that it wouldn't be, then Capitalism provides the best means (maximized profit) for the Christian to reach a given end (doing good).

That's why I say that people (even and especially those who would call themselves Christian), rather than a economic system, are at odds with Christianity.

If people choose to turn their profits toward selfish ends, that isn't Capitalism's fault.

That's not the standard for Christianity.


Mark 12:41-44 Now Jesus sat opposite the treasury and saw how the people put money into the treasury. And many who were rich put in much. 42 Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites,[a] which make a quadrans. 43 So He called His disciples to Himself and said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury; 44 for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all that she had, her whole livelihood.”

 

[soot]

That's not the standard for Christianity.


Mark 12:41-44 Now Jesus sat opposite the treasury and saw how the people put money into the treasury. And many who were rich put in much. 42 Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites,[a] which make a quadrans. 43 So He called His disciples to Himself and said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury; 44 for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all that she had, her whole livelihood.”

I guess depending upon how wildly fundamentalist you wanna be I suppose you could couple that with Matthew 19:21 and technically call it THE standard.

But if you're being pragmatic (as Christ was) about things and understand that not everyone is called to a life of poverty and the ministry I think you could do worse than doing "more good". I think Luke 6 addresses this a lot better than I could.