Capitalism and Christianity

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let me ask YOU a question. You have 15,000 people in your care and you can't send them home or some will die (these are the people you said they wouldn't accept the message but they seem to be hanging around a message they don't want to receive)...

You mean you would walk in perfect peace, no one will accept the message, and you don't have to worry about the situation?

I think you've grossly misunderstood what I said.

If you were going from town to town evangelizing, living off what others give you, you wouldn't have 15,000 people under your care. 15,000 Christians - if they were taking Jesus's words seriously - would disperse into ones, twos, or at most small groups to spread the Gospel as widely as possible.

But if you or your small group was hungry, what exactly would you have to fear? God knows your every need and loves you, right? If God wants you to eat, you'll get food. If he doesn't, you'll end up in Paradise and be rewarded for your suffering... which isn't bad either.

 

[Kenny]

I think you've grossly misunderstood what I said.

If you were going from town to town evangelizing, living off what others give you, you wouldn't have 15,000 people under your care. 15,000 Christians - if they were taking Jesus's words seriously - would disperse into ones, twos, or at most small groups to spread the Gospel as widely as possible.

And yet Jesus was WITH his disciples when he had 15000 people and couldn't send them home without eating first.

So back to the question, could you answer it please? Would you have no worries? (since ministry is so easy)

But if you or your small group was hungry, what exactly would you have to fear? God knows your every need and loves you, right? If God wants you to eat, you'll get food. If he doesn't, you'll end up in Paradise and be rewarded for your suffering... which isn't bad either.

Good point but if I end up in Paradise,("which isn't bad either") He still loves me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And yet Jesus was WITH his disciples when he had 15000 people and couldn't send them home without eating first.

So back to the question, could you answer it please? Would you have no worries? (since ministry is so easy)

If you're talking about the story I think you are, then God provided: a handful of loaves and fishes fed the multitudes. Why wouldn't that work now?

Good point but if I end up in Paradise,("which isn't bad either") He still loves me.

Right: so why worry about starving to death? In the long run, you would be better off for it.

 

[Fool]

Again, you don't seem to understand what it means to support an assertion.
You've made an assertion about capitalism (that it is inherently selfish and cannot be practiced selflessly), but you make no attempt to provide supporting argumentation (as logical reasoning or evidence) that proves your assertion to be true.

Without supportive arguments your assertion is unproven, and therefore just your opinion.
What you don't seem to grasp is that simply restating your opinion in different ways is not the same as providing supportive reasons to prove that your statement is true.
You have to tell us why capitalism (defined as private ownership of property) cannot ever under any circumstance be practiced with selfless love towards others and God. Only then have your proved your assertion is true.

Simply stating that it does, over and over, without giving reasons to prove why, makes you guilty of engaging in the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad assertion - the belief that by merely repeatedly asserting to be true that you prove it to be true.

Unless you can demonstrate the truth of your assertion, your entire argument falls apart because it was based on a bad foundational premise that was never true. And your scriptures were grossly misused.

FYI, you are not us. you're an individual.

 

[Rise]

FYI, you are not us. you're an individual.

Your non-response tells me that you finally understand what is required of you to support your assertion, but you realize you aren't able to provide real reasoning to justify your premise. Which does not surprise me, because it really was an indefensible position to take in the first place.

If you had a bit more humility or intellectual honesty you'd admit when you are wrong, rather than just respond with irrelevent comments while you ignore dealing with the glaring flaws in your reasoning.
Proverbs 11:2. If you can't humble yourself to admit when you are wrong, you'll never grow in wisdom.

 

[Fool]

Your non-response tells me that you finally understand what is required of you to support your assertion, but you realize you aren't able to provide real reasoning to justify your premise. Which does not surprise me, because it really was an indefensible position to take in the first place.

If you had a bit more humility or intellectual honesty you'd admit when you are wrong, rather than just respond with irrelevent comments while you ignore dealing with the glaring flaws in your reasoning.
Proverbs 11:2. If you can't humble yourself to admit when you are wrong, you'll never grow in wisdom.

a question is not an assertion. they aren't synonyms.

assertion

question

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

At the beginning, we trusted God for our daily bread--even when we had no bread.

Why are we trusting the breadwinner when there is no bread again?

OK... let's all stop working and just sit and believe God... Do we feed ourselves? Or does someone do that for us? OOPS!

Personally, I agree with you, but can't we just agree that Jesus spouted out stuff that was really stupid sometimes? 9th is right, it was said. That it doesn't work that way in reality is not the issue.

And yet Jesus was WITH his disciples when he had 15000 people and couldn't send them home without eating first.

But who was the Little Red Hen who fed them?

 

[Rise]

a question is not an assertion. they aren't synonyms.

assertion

question

This is an assertion, not a question:

capitalism is nothing more than belief system based on self vs others as self.

This, in the context of what you responded to, is an assertion that these scriptures are relevant to capitalism (which also means you are making several assertions about the nature of capitalism by implication):

the first scripture speaks about wealth en lieu of love. the second speaks about the poor vs a thiefs indifference to the money bag that was for the poor.

You repeatedly refuse to support either of those assertions with reason, but merely restate your beliefs and act as though you've answered the challenge.

For someone who quotes the Bible so much as something that should be followed, you are either engaging in willful ignorance or extreme intellectual dishonesty by trying to avoid supporting your claims, using dishonest deflection tactics instead of dealing honestly with my challenges to your assertions.
Both have their roots in pride. Perhaps you should spend more time reading those scriptures for a while, and less time reading scriptures about money.

 

[Fool]

This is an assertion, not a question:

agreed. my first post was a question with certain verses from a book tossed in because of their relevance to self-identifying christians who practice capitalism. you're implying that jesus advocated wealth? or the bible does?

the verses were random for me.

This, in the context of what you responded to, is an assertion that these scriptures are relevant to capitalism (which also means you are making several assertions about the nature of capitalism by implication):

unfortunately there are two parts to this thread and the one you keep avoiding is the following, or actions, of christ. christ is generally considered a christian by most christians. this thread isn't solely about capitalism. you're implying that Jesus wasn't discussing capitalist issues? or ideas?



to some christians capitalism is irrelevant. to some capitalists christianity is irrelevant. i seriously doubt that christian capitalist, or a capitalist christian, finds the scripture irrelevant.

you in particular seem to have taken a very personal interest.

You repeatedly refuse to support either of those assertions with reason, but merely restate your beliefs and act as though you've answered the challenge.
For someone who quotes the Bible so much as something that should be followed, you are either engaging in willful ignorance or extreme intellectual dishonesty by trying to avoid supporting your claims, using dishonest deflection tactics instead of dealing honestly with my challenges to your assertions.
Both have their roots in pride. Perhaps you should spend more time reading those scriptures for a while, and less time reading scriptures about money.

i quote the bible because it's relevant to what christian's believe regarding capitalism. a capitalist is not necessarily a christian. if this thread were solely about idolatry to wealth, I wouldn't have posted it here; nor would I have added the criteria christian.

 

[Rise]

agreed. my first post was a question with certain verses from a book tossed in because of their relevance to self-identifying christians who practice capitalism.

Those verses aren't relevant to capitalism. You asserted they were, so that's the assertion you either have to prove or retract.
They deal with theft and making money god, neither of which are attributes that must logically by necessity be present in a system of private property ownership. Unless you can first prove those attributes must necessarily exist for capitalism to be capitalism then your scripture usage remains irrelevent.

i quote the bible because it's relevant to what christian's believe regarding capitalism.

The bible is relevant, but only if you quote the parts of it that apply to your topic at hand. The parts you quoted were not relevant to capitalism, as I already explained for you.

the verses were random for me.

You seem to now be admitting that the verses you posted weren't relevant, because they were just randomly thrown out by you without deeper consideration for thier meaning or implications. Such an admission by you would be progress.

unfortunately there are two parts to this thread and the one you keep avoiding is the following, or actions, of christ. christ is generally considered a christian by most christians. this thread isn't solely about capitalism.

I am dealing with the underlying premise that all your other argumentation relies on, challenging you to deal logically with that premise to establish the validity of everything else you are trying to argue. I am not going to let you deflect, distract, and change the subject either in an attempt to avoid dealing logically with your assertions. Because if you cannot first establish that your assertion about capitalism being defined as selfishness is true then any further discussion about what the Bible says about selfishness is pointless in the context of establishing the relationship between capitalism and christianity.

The onus is on you to prove your assertions about the attributes of capitalism are true before we move on to discussing what the Bible says about those attributes.

This is logic 101.

I counter assert that you are wrong. Private property ownership as a concept is morally neutral. The Bible affirms private property ownership as ok from Genesis to the NT.

I reject your underlying assumption that capitalism must involve morally bad characteristics as being an unproven and unsupported opinion. It is not a statement of fact.

Your assertion also goes against logic.
I refer you back to the example I gave you of the two farmers trading crops - which disproves your assertion that capitalist must necessarily have a loser for someone else to win. (Which, by the way, is another assertion you made, not a question, that you again refused to try proving is true).

 

[Fool]

Those verses aren't relevant to capitalism. You asserted they were, so that's the assertion you either have to prove or retract.
They deal with theft and making money god, neither of which are attributes that must logically by necessity be present in a system of private property ownership. Unless you can first prove those attributes must necessarily exist for capitalism to be capitalism then your scripture usage remains irrelevent.

again this thread isn't solely about capitalism. it's about christianity """"and"""" capitalism.

the first verse implies nothing about theft. you used the conjunction ---and. the second verse does mention theft but it also speaks to the poor; which was judas. jesus was anointed with nard, or spikenard. nard was an expensive oil but as related in the story line, he was being anointed for his death. Judas supposedly didn't know he would be complicit.

the action of service operates in one of two direction. it's either self-serving, or serving to all as self.

Philosophically, it involves a person perceiving their neighbor also as "I" or "self"

service to self is a 1 > 1; when it's not a need. when it's a needed for self's well being its not an issue. charity begins at home. love, like the golden rule, doesn't exclude anyone.

service to other as self is 1 = 1; when no one profits, when two suffer together, or strive together for the mutual well being of one in need, or both in need. love doesn't make a difference between self and other as self.

capitalism is about service to self, to the individual. its an us vs them mentality; which is an illusion created by self to gain something from another. egotism is adverse to altruism. egotism refuses to recognize reality. it tries to create it's idea of reality.

or are you implying that the action of capitalizing is a service to others as self, or everyone?

the bible doesn't have a problem with ownership as needs. it has a problem with wealth and excess ownership that exceed needs.

these are needs.

wealth and excess are not needs. they are luxuries.

 

[Kenny]

If you're talking about the story I think you are, then God provided: a handful of loaves and fishes fed the multitudes. Why wouldn't that work now?

It has and does.

Right: so why worry about starving to death? In the long run, you would be better off for it.

Why worry? I think Jesus spoke about that:

“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes?
26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?
28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin.
29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.
30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith?
31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’
32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.
33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

 

[Kenny]

Why are we trusting the breadwinner when there is no bread again?


Personally, I agree with you, but can't we just agree that Jesus spouted out stuff that was really stupid sometimes? 9th is right, it was said. That it doesn't work that way in reality is not the issue.


But who was the Little Red Hen who fed them?

I'm trying to figure out... is there really a question?

 

[Kenny]

capitalism is about service to self, to the individual. its an us vs them mentality; which is an illusion created by self to gain something from another. egotism is adverse to altruism. egotism refuses to recognize reality. it tries to create it's idea of reality.

You are correct if you are looking at it in the world's perspective and the world's definition.

Could there be a capitalism that has a God's Kingdom perspective and a God definition?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It has and does.


Why worry? I think Jesus spoke about that:

That's right, he did... as I pointed out earlier. I think you forgot that this passage supports my position... i.e. the one you're arguing against.

 

[Kenny]

That's right, he did... as I pointed out earlier. I think you forgot that this passage supports my position... i.e. the one you're arguing against.

LOL... no... starving to death is not a defensible position within the context of that scripture. Go buy the guy some food or believe God for multiplicationi. I don't see where I was defending to worry.

 

[metis]

Why worry? I think Jesus spoke about that:..
34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Reminds me of a story that a priest at my wife's church used to tell, and it goes like this:

Jesus was walking with his apostles one day after a heavy rain, and they came upon a man who had his donkey stuck in the mud and was pulling hard on the reins trying to get it out while cursing up a storm. Jesus stopped and helped him, and the donkey was finally freed.

A bit further down the road they came across another man who also had his donkey stuck in the mud, and the man was on the side of the road with his eyes shut praying "Lord, please get my donkey out of the mud." Jesus said nothing but just shook his head and walked on.

The apostles were confused and asked Jesus why he helped the first man but not the second? Jesus answered "The first man was willing to help me, but the second man wanted me to do all the work".

In the Sermon On the Mount, Jesus called for action, not just prayer. Early Christianity became known for its benevolence, with congregants willing to even help those with leprosy, even at the risk of their own lives.

Worry, no; being involved as God's helper, yes.

Based on what you've posted before, I gotta feeling you'll agree.

 

[Kenny]

Reminds me of a story that a priest at my wife's church used to tell, and it goes like this:

Jesus was walking with his apostles one day after a heavy rain, and they came upon a man who had his donkey stuck in the mud and was pulling hard on the reins trying to get it out while cursing up a storm. Jesus stopped and helped him, and the donkey was finally freed.

A bit further down the road they came across another man who also had his donkey stuck in the mud, and the man was on the side of the road with his eyes shut praying "Lord, please get my donkey out of the mud." Jesus said nothing but just shook his head and walked on.

The apostles were confused and asked Jesus why he helped the first man but not the second? Jesus answered "The first man was willing to help me, but the second man wanted me to do all the work".

In the Sermon On the Mount, Jesus called for action, not just prayer. Early Christianity became known for its benevolence, with congregants willing to even help those with leprosy, even at the risk of their own lives.

Worry, no; being involved as God's helper, yes.

Based on what you've posted before, I gotta feeling you'll agree.

Yes and.... no.

NOW we have something to argue about

 

[metis]

NOW we have something to argue about

Great! So now I can show you why you're just sooooooo wrong! You just made my day-- I'm so happy!!!

So, fire away, Heathen!

 

[Kenny]

But I'm sure we agree...

I agree wholeheartedly that much more often than not, we are suppose to do all that we can do... and then let God do only what He can do. Certainly us idling standing by and expecting God to "do His thing" isn't what God expects.

But, if you think about it, Jesus came to the leper who could do absolutely nothing except ask so, in a sense, there is always someone who can do nothing who is on the receiving end. Or the blind man who has no capacity to change his situation except cry out "Son of David, have mercy on me".

In both cases they did absolutely nothing and Jesus did everything.

Of course, that is but the exception.

On our birthdays... we do nothing but receive! Did I tell you when my birthday was?