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

[Cyrylek]

The problem is that Christianity and Capitalism are both clearly defined.


It's an either/or fallacy between two aspects that have nothing to do with each other. A Christian can exist in a Capitalist society without compromising their set of ethics and principals.

When did I suggest "either/or"?

 

[Surtr]

When did I suggest "either/or"?

I'm talking about the premise of the thread.

 

[head of joaquin]

Nonsense. Good, Holy Spirit-filled evangelicals always endeavor to do the right things according to the Gospels, and studies show conservatives give more to charity than left wing loons. It's the left wing loons who covet conservatives money.

No they don't. Evangelicals preach a false gospel of money and mocking the poor. That's why God has blinded them to the clear message of the gospel of Christ.

 

[head of joaquin]

I'm not a Libertarian.

I just voted for one because I thought that, of the options available to me, he was the best man for the job. And it wasn't even because I thought he was a GOOD candidate, it's just that the alternatives were so abysmally BAD that I choose the best of the worst, if you will. If you look at my "lean" you'll note that I'm actually independent. I've voted for Democrats (Obama and several Congressional and State-level officials), Republicans (numerous), and one Libertarian. I've also written in and voted for other third-parties.

So...not my catchphrase.

Sorry.

Anywho...

You keep harping on this "one person has and another doesn't" nonsense.

You're leading me to believe that you have no marketable skills or abilities and that you live in some little vacuum somewhere in the United States where no means or method to acquire, hone, and/or perfect some sort of marketable skill is available.

I don't know where that could be, maybe you're a paralyzed quadriplegic and you've spent your entire life living at the bottom of a deep hole somewhere in the Mojave Desert or something. If so, it would stand to reason that you'd be making this argument which, to anyone who actually lives in the real world, is preposterous on it's face.

Who raised the issue of coercion? You did. But keep dancing. If I were you, I'd run from my prior posts too.

 

[head of joaquin]

The problem is that Christianity and Capitalism are both clearly defined.


It's an either/or fallacy between two aspects that have nothing to do with each other. A Christian can exist in a Capitalist society without compromising their set of ethics and principals.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether capitalism is compatible with Christianity. The values of capitalism reward exploitation and greed. It may also reward hard work and pluck, but that doesn't excuse its amoral premise.

 

[Logicman]

No they don't. Evangelicals preach a false gospel of money and mocking the poor. That's why God has blinded them to the clear message of the gospel of Christ.

Nonsense. Do you always paint an entire population of people guilty because some do these things?

 

[head of joaquin]

Nonsense. Do you always paint an entire population of people guilty because some do these things?

Because the rest condone it and give them television shows and book deals.

Not a single evangelical leader has criticized Robertson for his vicious statements and ill-gotten wealth. Not one.

 

[Logicman]

Because the rest condone it and give them television shows and book deals.

Not a single evangelical leader has criticized Robertson for his vicious statements and ill-gotten wealth. Not one.

Opinions differ on all that.

On the other hand how would you know who has or who has not spoken out on that? Did you do a poll? A web search? And not all of them are public personalities.

 

[head of joaquin]

Opinions differ on all that.

On the other hand how would you know who has or who has not spoken out on that? Did you do a poll? A web search? And not all of them are public personalities.

See, you're already making excuses for a guy who blamed 9-11 on lesbian witches, made millions on blood diamonds in Africa (and bragged about it), and called for the assassination of political leaders abroad.

And you wonder why I don't take your Christianity seriously. Money, murder, attacks on women -- that's what evangelicalism is all about it seems.

 

[Logicman]

See, you're already making excuses for a guy who blamed 9-11 on lesbian witches, made millions on blood diamonds in Africa (and bragged about it), and called for the assassination of political leaders abroad.

And you wonder why I don't take your Christianity seriously. Money, murder, attacks on women -- that's what evangelicalism is all about it seems.

I'm not defending anybody, just responding to your claim that no one condemned certain things he allegedly did.

 

[head of joaquin]

I'm not defending anybody, just responding to your claim that no one condemned certain things he allegedly did.

Tell us how opinions differ on a man who blamed 9-11 on lesbian witches, made millions on blood diamonds and called for the assassination of foreign leaders.

Sound like your moral relativism is showing. I have no problem denouncing his anti-gospel lunacy. No Christian should eat with such a man. He harms the Christian witness. How come you have trouble saying that?

 

[Logicman]

Tell us how opinions differ on a man who blamed 9-11 on lesbian witches, made millions on blood diamonds and called for the assassination of foreign leaders.

Sound like your moral relativism is showing. I have no problem denouncing his anti-gospel lunacy. How come you do?

Sorry, I don't answer for Pat Robertson. I haven't even investigated the claims against him. If he says or does something contrary to Scripture then he screwed up. So have fun with all that.

 

[head of joaquin]

Sorry, I don't answer for Pat Robertson. I haven't even investigated the claims against him. If he says or does something contrary to Scripture then he screwed up. So have fun with all that.

Thanks for proving my point: evangelicals condone the false Christians in their ranks. I wonder why. Maybe it's because they agree with them.

If you can't denounce calls to assassinate people as contrary to the gospel, your Christianity isn't worth much.

 

[Logicman]

Thanks for proving my point: evangelicals condone the false Christians in their ranks. I wonder why. Maybe it's because they agree with them.

If you can't denounce calls to assassinate people as contrary to the gospel, your Christianity isn't worth much.

This is all garbage.

 

[head of joaquin]

This is all garbage.

I know -- scholarship is garbage to the evangelical mind. That's another reason why it is contrary to Christianity. I depends on lies and misrepresentations and real Christianity embraces the truth in all things.

I can cite a half dozen scholars who show without a doubt that Daniel was written during the age of the Maccabees. The linguistic evidence itself is dispositive. But there is no point arguing facts with evangelicals. You'll simply deny the truth. That's why this sect is doomed.

 

[Logicman]

I know -- scholarship is garbage to the evangelical mind (and la la la...)

Don't start with that hogwash, joachin. I'm just not buying it. Your so-called scholars are anti-supernaturalist liberal rationalists with an agenda.

 

[RGacky3]

Capitalism isn't at odds with Christianity. The populist perceptions of what Capitalism and Christianity are is the problem.

Capitalism as defined by what everyone means when they say Capitalism ... i.e. an economy driven by private for profit buisiness, based on the capitalist mode of production ...

 

[RGacky3]

What this really shows is, liberals don't know a lot about Christianity.

I'ts not just liberals ... It's everyone, what it means is that people know more about Christianity and scripture than you.

NO ONE that's honest can read the bible and go away thinking that it would be pro-capitalistic.

 

[RGacky3]

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".

Of coarse human factors change things, but Capitalism REWARDS sociopathic behavior, capitalism REWARDS greed, infact it DEMANDS greed, it reward's exploitation and it rewards maximizing negative externalities (i.e. not loving your neighbor), THAT is an immoral system.

 

[RGacky3]

Again, there's nothing intrinsically un-Christian about Capitalism.

Likewise, there is nothing to Capitalism that is, of logical necessity, exploitative.

If you can take a simple definition of Capitalism and show me, based solely on that definition, that Capitalism must be exploitative and un-Christian, then maybe we'll have a starting point for debate.

Mind you, I'm not asking for examples of how humans have made Capitalism un-Christian, I'm asking for proof that as an economic system it MUST be un-Christian.

Actually, that's probably where this thread should have started, with the OP offering incontrovertible proof that Capitalism MUST be un-Christian.

So far we are only laboring under someone's assumption that it is.

So before we go any further, or at least before I go any further, I'll expect those who would argue that Capitalism MUST be un-Christian to prove that it MUST be un-Christian.

If a system demands that to do well in it, you MUST maximize profits and maximize exploitation, and negative externalities, when it rewards and demands sociopathy, greed, selfishness and cut-throat competition, that's an EVIL system.

Obviously the individuals are also to blaim, but it's the SYSTEM that rewards them.

If there is a law that gives tax cuts to people that punch old ladies ... the people that punch old ladies are immoral ... but so is the law, so is the system.

 

[RGacky3]

At a price agreed to by those who would work.

If I had the means to maintain myself, say a freshwater stream, a couple acres to farm, and a few more of woodland to hunt, I'd still put on a suit and come to work every morning.

There are lots of things I want that don't grow from the ground or swim in a stream.

And of course this doesn't take into consideration things like electricity, medical care, technological/scientific development, the arts, or a million and one other things.

The scriptures condemn those who due to their higher position take advantage of the poor, charge interest (a sin, interest, or rent is the cornerstone of capitalism), even if the poor person agrees, because he MUST, the higher position is still commiting a sin.

Capitalism is a system that DEMANDS that he takes as much advantage as possible (maximizing profits).

 

[RGacky3]

You define "capitalism" as to make it "amoral". The crucial component that makes actual capitalism (as opposed to previous and alternative "social formations") is the free-market element, freedom-of-choice element. Nothing "amoral" about that. The very core of morality.

Freedom of choice doesn't have anything to do with Capitalism, if a private park is made into a public park i.e. the commons, you still have freedom of choice, it's just everyone now has more of a choice.

If instead of private industry you have cooperatives, you have freedom of choice, not just for the boss, but for everyone.

This whole "freedom of choice" is a strawman. But find me a scriptrue, where property rights come before, or are more important than social justice ... they NEVER are.

 

[RGacky3]

Capitalism isn't necessarily incompatible with Christianity or any other ethical system, but corporatism is incompatible with most ethical systems, including Christianity. By corporatism I mean the belief and practice that puts the financial interest of a company's owners (stockholders) above all interests, including the company's employees, community and customers. That is the key legal obligation for for-profit corporations. One of the main reasons to organize a corporation is to protect the employees and owners from being held responsible for their actions, which is a license to act unethically without even having to be embarrassed. Others have correctly observed that the personality of corporation is similar to a sociopath or psychopath.

Yes, you can find examples of good corporate behavior, but that is usually because the corporation decided it was in the interest of the owners to appear ethical or generous. In other cases, it may be because some individuals within the corporation acted against the owner's interests.

Corporatism IS Capitalism ... That's what Capitalism is. Its not like Capitalist's were more ethical prior to corporations though ... (because capitalism still demands maximizing profits).

 

[RGacky3]

I don't think so. The Bible says man shall reap what he sows. It doesn't say he shall covet and reap what other people sow.

As for 'Redistribution of Wealth,' that's the program that's unbiblical. Here's why:

Obama vs. the Bible – Redistribution of Wealth « The Righter Report

You shall reap what you sow has nothign to do with capitalism vrs socialism ... it's individual, not the set of laws and institution that society runs on.

If Redistribution of wealth is unbiblical, why did Yahweh make sure it was an intrigal part of the mosaic law, why did the he make sure property was communal in the first century church.

It's not a sin to be rich. Job was rich, Abraham was rich, God blessed Solomon with riches, etc. It's only a problem when money becomes one's idol and its importance surpasses serving God and one's neighbors. So you need to modify your beliefs on that.

And both had more than one wife, Abraham wasn't that rich.

Solomon was a state official, ruling over what would today be called a socialist state, God blessed ALL OF ISRAEL with riches .... Look at how often God condemns nations who do not prioritize the poor ....

James is talking about the rich who have made money their idol. My prior argument stands.

Where ... Where does James say that? .... I follow the scriptural TEXT .... Show me the text.

This is all garbage.

That's what someone types who has NO argument and CANNOT defend his position from scripture.

 

[RGacky3]

Back in the real world, and to use your analogy, it's like the mugger saying "give me your money" and you being able to say, "Nahh, that deal doesn't really work for me. I'm gonna go down the street and see if I can find a mugger who isn't going to take my money".

But ridiculous analogies about muggers do?

Let's try to understand each other here.

You would propose that everyone who is working at a minimum wage job is resigned to such a situation because, despite great skill, intellect, and work ethic "the Capitalist man" is keeping him down (with a jackboot, or some such).

I would propose that everyone who is working at a minimum wage job is resigned to such a situation because despite the abundance of opportunity provided in a Capitalist economy to improve one's self, build marketable skills and knowledge, and generally get ahead most minimum wage workers are too lazy to bother, or suffer from self-defeating habits and addictions that keep them down.

Since neither of us is entirely right, and neither of us is entirely wrong, we'd still wind up with a great many people who, despite being given 40 acres and a mule would still languish and rot unless someone else took responsibility for them.

And lets look at this from another perspective and play a little mental game.

The United States is composed of a little over 3.7 million square miles of territory.

That comes to a little over 2.4 billion acres.

There is a current U.S. population of a little less than 314 million.

If we assume that that total acreage could be divide by that total population such that every man, woman, and child would receive an equal portion, and that every portion would contain EVERYTHING that a human being needs to remain self sufficient then each of them would receive about 7.5 acres.

Those are facts. There's a bit of rounding involved but if we make the assumptions that I've proposed then the math works out okay.

Now lets play the game.

What percentage of the total land mass of the United States do you think actually can provide a human being with everything they need to live?

I'd hazard to guess that it doesn't even begin to approach the total.

When we begin to take into consideration river-less parries, deserts, the Rocky Mountains, swampland, dense, dense, dense Northeastern and Northwestern forests, coastline, and etc...

Maybe half?

Next exercise.

I'm fortunate in that I live in a well forested area in Northwestern NJ. There is actually a real Trout stream (I fish it regularly) down the hill from me and if I were to clear away all the houses there's enough open land that I could farm.

Assuming my neighbors (under the new land distribution scheme) and I could all get along my little municipality at about 7 square miles could sustain about 640 of the current residents of the town.

Wadda we do with the ~7000 current residents?

Do they move? If so, where?

Do I move? If so **** that. I like it here. I'm not moving. You move me, and ΜΟΛON ΛABE, and "from my cold dead hands" and all that claptrap.

So I guess the real question is, how do you propose we equitably and peacefully divide and relocate people?

And what happens if your 7.5 acres happens to be in the middle of the Mojave, or atop Denali, or along a tidal basin?

You're cool with that?

Or do we each get 2.5 acres to accommodate the fact that there is only so much arable, hunt-able land around that also has sufficient water?



Would I?

Would I have bargaining power equal to that of every other resident?

Let's say that my plot of land had lots of fish, which people could eat, but your plot of land had lots of something much rarer like minerals. Salt, or iron, or gold, or whatever.

Wouldn't the simple natural distribution of minerals lead to a society of some "haves" and some "have nots"?

I mean, we already split up all the land so it would be equally distributed and ran people out of their homes and off their previous land so that we could distribute to those who didn't have any. Are you now saying that I don't even own what's mine?

Okay, we'll play that game too.

My new plot of land happens to sit on top of a salt deposit or an iron vein.

I can mine some of either, enough to make me the richest man in town, but I can't mine all of it or anywhere enough to provide for the wants of everyone.

Who comes and mines my land?

And do they have to provide me with some sort of compensation for the inconvenience of hosting their mining operation and for the loss of the use of whatever land they take for that operation?

Who does the compensating in this instance?

I thought we were trying to get AWAY from Capitalism?

I though we were trying to figure out some way where everyone is equal, though we've seen that even if we try to be equal and "fair" in our redistribution of real property there's still no Earthly way we can really be fair.

So everyone gets an arithmetically equal portion of land but some will have resources that are more valuable and if they're industrious enough they'll exploit that disparity. Others, due to laziness, or ineptitude, or a simple mistake, or an injury, or a natural disaster, will be given an arithmetically equal portion of land but it'll go fallow and unused. What's more, since everyone is working for him or herself who is going to take care of the indigent?

Sure it does. Those with more resources might not work at all. Those with fewer resources might work, but wouldn't have to accept minimum wage. And those with the least recourses would accept lower wages. This reflects the fact that that at its core capitalism is about exploiting those with fewer resources.

Where do the scriptures say that? .... Here is waht the scriptures say.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/156925-social-justice.html