In my area, there's a significant number of businesses owned and run by Mennonites.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Capitalism and Christianity
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
it kind of boils down to taking care of the people who make up the business. mankind is everyone's business. those who focus on the money have lost sight of what can benefit a few at the expense of many. good businesses need a great workforce. do not deny the beast of burden; when grinding out the corn.
agreed. businesses owned by the community as shareholders and operated by a select number of elders vs everyone having a vote unlike stockholders.
Beware systems which trumpet their "efficiency", when
it stems from elimination that pesky economic liberty.
I don't really dispute that there are some strong elements of anti-capitalism (or even Communism) in the Bible, but historically Capitalism has been part of the intellectual heritage of Christianity.
I am not replying in the context to your original post. I am replying to your replies on my original post. If you wanted to discuss your op and not mine, then you should not have replied to mine.
I have nothing to say on your original post, and so I did not reply to it.
If you wanted to debate me on the topic of your post for whatever reason one would want to do so, then why reply to my original post??
I am genuinely confused by this type of religiousforum posting. It's like people forget who they are replying to, or what they were only minutes ago talking about, or who started the reply chain in the first place.
We were never talking about your post anywhere in this reply chain. So why try to change the topic now?? Again, I have no interest in trying to argue against your original point. It seems fine to me. So of what relevance is your original point to your replies to my original point??
Why would I need to read your post that lies outside of this reply chain when you started the discussion about my post?! Your post seems fine, but that's not the topic of your replies.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
This is Christian fact--
Democratic socialism.
Matthew 19:21-27
Jesus said to him, `If thou dost will to be perfect, go away, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me.'
And the young man, having heard the word, went away sorrowful, for he had many possessions; and Jesus said to his disciples, `Verily I say to you, that hardly shall a rich man enter into the reign of the heavens; and again I say to you, it is easier for a camel through the eye of a needle to go, than for a rich man to enter into the reign of God.'
And his disciples having heard, were amazed exceedingly, saying, `Who, then, is able to be saved?'
And Jesus having earnestly beheld, said to them, `With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'
Then Peter answering said to him, `Lo, we did leave all, and follow thee, what then shall we have?'
at the inception it wasn't; when the focus is on the bottom line, or money. again it boils down to selfish vs selfless, or recognition of other as self, the golden rule, or as Jesus said:
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
or exodus 3:14-15 self = other self
Last edited:
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
So who is going to be the one we trust to administer daily provisions equally?
with love for mankind capitalism is possible.
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2014...ey-ingredient-to-american-capitalist-economy/
Because you're going off the rails with a misunderstanding of my position when it was right there for you to read it and correct those misunderstands if you were so inclined.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
It's possible. It's not efficient.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
What does democracy mean?
with this i can agree but one must decide if quantity is more important than quality... a balance is preferable imo
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Not what I wished it meant.
Not owned by the community; owned by individual people who just happen to be Mennonite.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
You're fighting against yourself.
The goals of your economic liberty are largely affordable to every single person on the planet.
No hoarding necessary.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Both are afforded in democratic socialism.
You do not use your position in your initial reply for mine. Why would any sane being assume it is relevant then?? It is not.
Your original position is "Christians as described in the bible can't be in a position of authority".
My original position was "Christians giving money is different from forcing people to give money".
Your counter to my original position was "God says they have to give money or he'll punish them."
My counter was "A God doing the punishment is not a state doing the punishment. Ergo still a person could still believe in a system where the state doesn't punish for a lack of charity and still believe in a system where a god does punish for a lack of charity."
Your original argument entered nowhere into your counterarguments. If you wanted to counter my initial point with your own you should have used that initial point, not pulled verses out of the bible to try to show how God mandates charity, because that counterargument has nothing to do with your own original point.
You're insisting I keep up with your constantly shifting position. No. I insist you stick to one position at a time, because your current refusal to do so is a dishonest debate tactic.
Do you wish to try to counter my original point with your point that early Christians as described cannot be in a power of authority, or do you wish to try to counter my points with your cited scriptures mandating charity?? I am fine with addressing either of these counterpoints, but I will not allow you to switch between one and the other at a whim to prevent me from nailing down what your precise argument is.
Clearly define the counterpoint you wish to use and stick to it. I'm not playing rhetorical whack-a-mole with you. Stick to a counterpoint if you wish to have an honest discussion.