Why so little Christian anti-capitalism?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those are curses not commandments. A curse fulfills itself.

Strange, then, that this curse often doesn't fulfill itself.

For example just because it says women will have pain in child birth that doesn't mean we don't try to ease the pain with painkillers or something.

Actually, it has meant precisely that for most of the history of Christianity:

Though attempts to treat the pain of childbirth were made in many ancient cultures, a biblical misogyny infiltrated the medical care given to laboring women for centuries in Western society. Christians portrayed pain relief in childbirth as blasphemous, believing it contravened God’s punishment for Eve’s original sin: “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children” (Genesis 3:16). According to Steve Ainsworth at Midwives magazine, incense and prayer (yeah, really) were an accepted analgesic, but “anything else might upset divine intent.”

Misogyny and the Epidural: a Primer

This view is less popular these days, but still held by some Christian groups.


And I get that there are plenty of Christians who don't take either of these passages as commandments to follow, but what I don't get is why there have been so many who took the curse on Eve as a commandment but not the curse on Adam.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think if you read what the pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury have been saying in recent years about capitalism and the priorities of capitalist societies, you will find plenty of criticism of the way it works. Some links:
Pope Francis' blunt critique of capitalism praised as needed warning

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...pitalism-as-reincarnation-of-an-ancient-evil/

Sorry, but I'm going to take any anti-capitalist statements from the leader of a church with its own bank with a grain of salt.

But neither of these thought leaders, I suspect, would want to attack the basic principle of those with money lending it in the expectation of a chance of getting back more than they lent. Certainly I see no reason why this should be considered intrinsically objectionable, seeing as it has underpinned the vast improvement in the standard of living of billions of people across the world since the failure of communism.

Sure, but we could say the same about birth control. The fact that something is overwhelmingly positive has never been an obstacle to religious objections to it, IMO.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I hate hypocrisy.

I hate it when people point their finger at someone else instead of accepting responsibility for their own crap. If you have capital income, or other forms of passive income coming in, or even if it's income that is earned from work, if it's not heavily and mostly going to charity (with very little going to yourself, none if you want to emulate Christ) Christ said you aren't getting into the Kingdom. Say what you want, the Christian defenders of Capitalism never seem to remember or want to accept that Jesus actually did tell his disciples to sell everything they own and give the money to the poor (and that at least three of the Gospels recorded him as saying such) and that he very strongly emphasized helping the poor, even if you yourself are poor. And just because Jesus wanted to make sure he was being very clear and specific on the point, he also said you can't serve god and mammon, and he metaphorically implied rich people really don't get into the Kingdom.

 

[exchemist]

Sorry, but I'm going to take any anti-capitalist statements from the leader of a church with its own bank with a grain of salt.


Sure, but we could say the same about birth control. The fact that something is overwhelmingly positive has never been an obstacle to religious objections to it, IMO.

But that's the point. Neither church is totally against capitalism per se and nor should they be. But they do criticise some of its effects, quite vociferously.

 

[dianaiad]

I hate it when people point their finger at someone else instead of accepting responsibility for their own crap. If you have capital income, or other forms of passive income coming in, or even if it's income that is earned from work, if it's not heavily and mostly going to charity (with very little going to yourself, none if you want to emulate Christ) Christ said you aren't getting into the Kingdom. Say what you want, the Christian defenders of Capitalism never seem to remember or want to accept that Jesus actually did tell his disciples to sell everything they own and give the money to the poor (and that at least three of the Gospels recorded him as saying such) and that he very strongly emphasized helping the poor, even if you yourself are poor. And just because Jesus wanted to make sure he was being very clear and specific on the point, he also said you can't serve god and mammon, and he metaphorically implied rich people really don't get into the Kingdom.

Do you "walk the walk" you are decreeing that everyone else must walk?

 

[Spartan]

I noticed a few threads lately talking about the command to "be fruitful and multiply" and it got me to thinking:

The Garden of Eden story describes God saying many different things to Adam and Eve, but Christians seem to give them... varying weight.

"Be fruitful and multiply" gets a lot of play. It's brought up frequently in the context of family planning. It even served as the main inspiration for an entire Christian movement (the Quiverfull movement).

God's curse on Eve as she's thrown out of the garden - i.e. that she will have to suffer pain in childbirth - even gets brought up sometimes in the context of whether anaesthetic should be used for people giving birth.

... but what I never hear Christians talking about is God's curse on Adam: that he will have to work "by the sweat of his brow." Why not?

It seems to me that this is just as much a repudiation of earning income not tied to labour (e.g. return on capital invested) as "be fruitful and multiply" is a repudiation of birth control.

Still, AFAICT, we never hear Christian thought leaders condemning "passive" income or earning return on capital.

So what gives?

We prefer to walk our dogs, not eat them. Socialism is a black market for toilet paper.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you "walk the walk" you are decreeing that everyone else must walk?

The only "decree that everyone else should do" is respect the rights and liberties of others. Beyond that, I'm not really bound to any creed or guiding authority force. However, Christians are. I used to be one, I still know it very well, and they're aren't overall that many who do condemn wealth as Jesus did. Those who live off of others because they actually did sell everything they own and give the money (and all the money they make) to the poor, and Jesus and his disciples did, are very rare indeed.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Snort.

And yet the Democrats supported Clinton.....he and his wife took nearly $200,000 worth of stuff that they ended up being shamed into giving back. As well, he and his stuff vandalized the White House...leaving pictures depicting Bush as a chimpanzee (how come that is perfectly ok with liberals if aimed at a white guy, but is considered to be the worst insult possible if aimed at a black one?) removing the 'w' keys from all the keyboards, stealing the antique door knobs and gluing drawers shut...and let us not forget the matter of sexual misconduct in the Oval Office. Liberals seem to think that supporting that sort of thing is perfectly acceptable,

I hate hypocrisy.

SO glad to hear that you support impeaching Trump as well.

 

[dianaiad]

The only "decree that everyone else should do" is respect the rights and liberties of others. Beyond that, I'm not really bound to any creed or guiding authority force. However, Christians are. I used to be one, I still know it very well, and they're aren't overall that many who do condemn wealth as Jesus did. Those who live off of others because they actually did sell everything they own and give the money (and all the money they make) to the poor, and Jesus and his disciples did, are very rare indeed.

So... you yourself do not adhere to those standards, which you give to me third hand, as someone who used to be a specific sort of Christian telling us what THOSE Christians 'should' do. You are expanding that declaration to tell us what all Christians should do.

You are criticizing all Christians for not adhering to standards that you don't hold to, that belonged to a group you used to belong to and no longer do...

And this is somehow not being hypocritical, how, precisely?

 

[dianaiad]

SO glad to hear that you support impeaching Trump as well.

I don't.

But then, I didn't support impeaching Clinton, either. Or rather, I didn't support kicking him out of office.

Mind you, I had no problem with his disbarment. I figure that was fair. Oh...you ARE aware that he was disbarred, right?

The point here is....Trump hasn't stolen anything from the White House...and HE knows the meaning of the word 'no,' even if he is a typical locker room jerk. I prefer that to smarmy rapists....which Clinton was. HE was even sued for being a rapist, and, er...lost the lawsuit.

I still didn't support removing him from office through the impeachment process.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are criticizing all Christians for not adhering to standards that you don't hold to

I don't criticize all, and I pointed out examples who do live as Christ instructed. And I'm not beholden to these standards because I'm not a Christian. But I do know what Jesus taught about wealth, the wealthy going to heaven, and how he felt about "earthly treasures that thieves steal and moths and dust corrupt," asking "what profit is it a man to gain the world and lose his soul?"

 

[QuestioningMind]

I don't.

But then, I didn't support impeaching Clinton, either. Or rather, I didn't support kicking him out of office.

Mind you, I had no problem with his disbarment. I figure that was fair. Oh...you ARE aware that he was disbarred, right?

The point here is....Trump hasn't stolen anything from the White House...and HE knows the meaning of the word 'no,' even if he is a typical locker room jerk. I prefer that to smarmy rapists....which Clinton was. HE was even sued for being a rapist, and, er...lost the lawsuit.

I still didn't support removing him from office through the impeachment process.

I see... though I have to wonder who it was that sued him for rape. As I recall Paula Jones sued him for sexual harassment... which Clinton eventually settled with a payment.

Of course Clinton never attempted to pressure a foreign nation to dig up dirt on his political rivals, attempted to obstruct justice in the Mueller investigation, or colluded with Russia during the previous election... things that are a bit more impeachable offenses than lying about getting a BJ in the Oval Office.

 

[Father Heathen]

Snort.

And yet the Democrats supported Clinton.....he and his wife took nearly $200,000 worth of stuff that they ended up being shamed into giving back. As well, he and his stuff vandalized the White House...leaving pictures depicting Bush as a chimpanzee (how come that is perfectly ok with liberals if aimed at a white guy, but is considered to be the worst insult possible if aimed at a black one?) removing the 'w' keys from all the keyboards, stealing the antique door knobs and gluing drawers shut...and let us not forget the matter of sexual misconduct in the Oval Office. Liberals seem to think that supporting that sort of thing is perfectly acceptable,

I hate hypocrisy.

"Jesus is okay with me disavowing his teachings and examples because Clinton."

Uh, ok.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I hate it when people point their finger at someone else instead of accepting responsibility for their own crap. If you have capital income, or other forms of passive income coming in, or even if it's income that is earned from work, if it's not heavily and mostly going to charity (with very little going to yourself, none if you want to emulate Christ) Christ said you aren't getting into the Kingdom. Say what you want, the Christian defenders of Capitalism never seem to remember or want to accept that Jesus actually did tell his disciples to sell everything they own and give the money to the poor (and that at least three of the Gospels recorded him as saying such) and that he very strongly emphasized helping the poor, even if you yourself are poor. And just because Jesus wanted to make sure he was being very clear and specific on the point, he also said you can't serve god and mammon, and he metaphorically implied rich people really don't get into the Kingdom.

He also said that people who worry about where their food and clothes are going to come from have "little faith."

 

[Sand Dancer]

We prefer to walk our dogs, not eat them. Socialism is a black market for toilet paper.

 

[Father Heathen]

Do you "walk the walk" you are decreeing that everyone else must walk?

It's not unreasonable to expect people to practice what they preach. And those who call out the hypocrisy needn't "also walk the walk" if they never claimed that it's the walk that should be walked.
If someone loudly declared themselves to be a vegan and claimed that this stance made them morally superior, but then proceeded to stuff their face with meat, would you also have to be a vegan to realize that they're a two-faced hypocrite?

 

[dianaiad]

It's not unreasonable to expect people to practice what they preach. And those who call out the hypocrisy needn't "also walk the walk" if they never claimed that it's the walk that should be walked.
If someone loudly declared themselves to be a vegan and claimed that this stance made them morally superior, but then proceeded to stuff their face with meat, would you also have to be a vegan to realize that they're a two-faced hypocrite?

No.

However, I would call those who support politicians who are venal, grasping, thieves who are guilty of sexual harassment (at least) workplace sexual abuse and lying hypocrites if they criticize the politicians with whose policies they disagree of sexual harassment, being venal, grasping thieves and liars. I also call them hypocrites for criticizing the supporters of those politicians for supporting people who are (insert all the negative adjectives here).

 

[Father Heathen]

No.

However, I would call those who support politicians who are venal, grasping, thieves who are guilty of sexual harassment (at least) workplace sexual abuse and lying hypocrites if they criticize the politicians with whose policies they disagree of sexual harassment, being venal, grasping thieves and liars. I also call them hypocrites for criticizing the supporters of those politicians for supporting people who are (insert all the negative adjectives here).

So you're presuming that anyone who's critical of Trump must be a Clinton fan, and vice versa? Here's something that'll make your head explode; I don't like either of them. "But how is that possible?!" you ask? Simple, I place principles before partisanship.

 

[dianaiad]

So you're presuming that anyone who's critical of Trump must be a Clinton fan, and vice versa? Here's something that'll make your head explode; I don't like either of them. "But how is that possible?!" you ask? Simple, I place principles before partisanship.

Wow, that's a false dichotomy that YOU are setting up.

I am defining the group that has already defined themselves as left wing, Democrat (and thus Clinton supporters...especially those that have come out and defended Clinton). I am calling THEM hypocrites when they go after Trump.

I can understand your confusion, however....isn't it automatically assumed that anybody who opposes impeaching Trump MUST have been gung ho about impeaching Clinton? Certainly someone (I forget who...was it you?) was all set to call me out for supporting Clinton's impeachment, having assumed that I MUST have been all for that, since I'm against impeaching Trump.

Then I mentioned being against the Clinton impeachment, too....and left whoever it was sputtering and with no place to go.

No. I call the hypocrites hypocritical, YOU are the one who is assuming that I mean "everybody who criticizes Trump for any reason at all," when there is no reason to make such an assumption.

 

[Father Heathen]

Certainly someone (I forget who...was it you?) was all set to call me out for supporting Clinton's impeachment

Wasn't me. I don't give either Clinton much thought unless others bring them up. The impeachment thing feels like 10,000 years ago to me. I was still in HS and had no opinion of it then.