Why so little Christian anti-capitalism?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It used to be the position of the Catholic Church, but they revised the belief to reflect the nature of the modern economy. Usury is forbidden, but not reasonable interest. Charging interest is not forbidden in Jewish law either.

Don't know much about the theological underpinnings of these though.

Passive income doesn't necessarily mean collecting interest on loans.

AFAIK, the Catholic Church has never had an issue with shareholders receiving dividends on their shares, buying and selling shares for profit, charging rent as a landlord, receiving an inheritance, or most of the other ways a person can receive an income without labouring themselves.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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.

Note that the post you replied to was specifically referring to Christian Evangelicals supporting Trump, not conservatives. In other words, the focus was on the hypocrisy of Christians supporting a man who embodies everything that should be unacceptable in their religion.

 

[PureX]

Religions that don't support the ideals of those in power don't get the support of those in power. And therefor tend not to last long. Especially if they actively oppose the ideals of those in power. And as we all know, wealth and power are part and parcel. So religions that oppose the accumulation of wealth and the use of it to control commerce (capitalism) aren't likely to thrive, or to last long.

It may be that religion's lack of anti-capitalism is the result of the capitalists stranglehold on culture, through it's absolute control commerce, and thereby the well being of every person living in a modern, highly interdependent, capitalist society.

 

[PureX]

Why should Christians condemn passive income?

For example let's say a Christian came into a small fortune somehow or other. They could just do a really good deed and give it all to some charity; which would be fine. But on the other hand they could invest it and give from the profit to charity. In the long run they would actually have the potential to give more to charity by investing first.

Even Jesus gave the parable about the servants given sums of money to invest. Now we know that Jesus was speaking of spiritual matters not actual money. But, this still shows the wisdom behind investing money.

If giving more money away is the single criteria for moral behavior regarding money, then why not just steal lots of money, and give most of it to the church (as the Spanish Conquistadors did)? That way you get to be rich AND saintly.

 

[shmogie]

Just as I described in the OP: the curse that God puts on humanity for Adam's sin is that each person - or maybe just men, depending on interpretation - must gain his sustenance by their own labour: "toil" by "the sweat of his brow."

Someone who gains their sustenance by, say, returns on a mutual fund portfolio or by rental income as a landlord isn't gaining their sustenance through personal toil "by the sweat of their brow."

So, do you believe this is a command that one must follow ?

Are disabled people, or those on welfare breaking this command as well ?

No, God was making an observation about how things had changed in the lives of humans.

 

[shmogie]

Religions that don't support the ideals of those in power don't get the support of those in power. And therefor tend not to last long. Especially if they actively oppose the ideals of those in power. And as we all know, wealth and power are part and parcel. So religions that oppose the accumulation of wealth and the use of it to control commerce (capitalism) aren't likely to thrive, or to last long.

It may be that religion's lack of anti-capitalism is the result of the capitalists stranglehold on culture, through it's absolute control commerce, and thereby the well being of every person living in a modern, highly interdependent, capitalist society.

Spoken like a true Leninist.

 

[whirlingmerc]

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?

Work is not a curse
Work was given prior to the fall Adam worked the garden
Work with difficulty was part of the curse and a restraint to man who now has a sin nature

He who does not work does not eat is a new testament phrase for able bodied people
He who has should share it is another to be taken with that in mind.
Taking care of older relatives is another
The church taking care of widows is another (so they can be devoted to prayer)

Need to take the ideas in ensemble

 

[wellwisher]

Right wing Christians hate the government for some reason, fiscally anyway. I don't know why. There are so
many things that evangelicals made up that they pretend is biblical.

Government never turns a profit. It works via inefficiency, waste and deficit spending. This is not how nature works. Nature will create overflowing abundance. Fruitful and multiply means to create more than you started with. One seed from a fruit, can makes a second plant, which can produce more fruit and more seeds, etc.,

A baby is a profit from sex. Two become three. The left prefers deficit style sex and reproduction. This could be explained as having sex, creating disease, and ending up with fewer people. Abortion makes it a wash.

Profit and creating wealth adds to the GNP. This is being fruitful and multiplying. Big Government and deficits makes a tree with rotten fruit that is thrown away only to contaminate other trees; deficit spending.

Trump has been running deficits, since nobody in Washington wants to change the status quo.

But he is nevertheless being fruitful and multiplying via jobs and GNP. The tax cuts also put more money in the hands of citizens, who are able to be fruitful and multiple via the private sector. It would not be fruitful if left to the Government to spend or invest.

 

[74x12]

Because of Adam's sin, apparently:

17 But to Adam he said,
“Because you obeyed your wife
and ate from the tree about which I commanded you,
‘You must not eat from it,’
cursed is the ground thanks to you;
in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
but you will eat the grain of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat food
until you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust, and to dust you will return.”

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 3:17-19 - New English Translation

Those are curses not commandments. A curse fulfills 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.

Sure. We can come up with scenarios where it would be good to disobey what God is saying here, just as we can come up with scenarios where it would be good to disobey "be fruitful and multiply." I think that's missing the point, though.

Say a Christian gets a significant portion of their income from passive sources; he owns a bunch of stocks that pay dividends, say. If that's what he uses to buy his food, then how is his food coming "from painful toil" and "by the sweat of his brow?"

The question goes double if he acquired the money to buy those stocks through an inheritance.

Again, it's a curse that man will get his bread by the sweat of his brow. It's not a commandment. It's never been the case in human society that this curse has ever fallen equally on everyone. Life's not fair. But what is fair in my opinion is that a parent can work hard and leave an inheritance for their own children. That's fair. Clearly the children don't deserve it; but because it pleased the parents to make them inherit it; then that's fair.

In the parable, the servant wasn't instructed to live off the proceeds of the investment.

Well, they had to live somehow. The master when he was leaving said to them "occupy till I come". (Luke 19:13)

... even though Acts describes the Apostles living in a communistic arrangement?

But it was always a consensual arrangement for the Jerusalem church. Like for example in the story of Ananias and Sapphira, Peter tells Ananias that the money was his to do with whatever he wanted. No one made him lie about it. My point is that it was consensual.

In context; it seems that they assumed Christ's return was imminent. So they saw no reason to continue working. Instead they decided it was best to pool their belongings and spend their time spreading the gospel. Laudable ambition in my opinion; but they were wrong about Christ's imminent return. It turned out to be a bit longer of a wait than they anticipated.

In the writings of Paul we find that he raises money from all the churches he founded to bring to the church in Jerusalem which was then poor. I am not saying it was poor because of poor planning; but we do find that this practice which you term communism was not continued in other early churches.

If giving more money away is the single criteria for moral behavior regarding money, then why not just steal lots of money, and give most of it to the church (as the Spanish Conquistadors did)? That way you get to be rich AND saintly.

If people steal money to give to God it's an abomination to God. You can find more than one scripture in the old Testament condemning stolen goods as sacrifices to God. The same principle applies to offerings of money or tithes.

As for the Spanish Conquistadors ... hardly a good example of honest Christian behavior.

 

[PureX]

As for the Spanish Conquistadors ... hardly a good example of honest Christian behavior.

Neither is capitalism as it is currently being practiced. In fact, they are very similar, I think, except the capitalists aren't giving most of their wealth to the church. They're using it to enslave everyone else to their own benefit. Which is even worse, don't you think?

 

[Ouroboros]

It's easy to oppose communism as a Christian when you learn what they did to Christians in Soviet Russia, China, NK etc.

Protestant were persecuted by Catholics as well. All forms of Christians have been violent and engaging in wars against "the others", i.e. anyone who is different minded. One reason America has a freedom of religion was based on certain Christian denominations were persecuted in Europe, and they didn't want the same to happen here.

Besides, Communism persecute all religions, not just Christians. With that said though, Communism wants to create equality for all, give health care to everyone, and create a system that takes care of those in need, but it doesn't work because of human greed. The love of money, power, and influence is forever what corrupts any form of government. But that aside, Communism is an ideology that tries to create the Christian ideals of loving your neighbor (but of course, you can't dictate such things).

Communism, on the other hand, isn't a Christian concept. When they disciples wanted to pay the tax, they didn't have the money, but got it through a miracle. Jesus told them and educated them that God will provide when they have need. He didn't teach them to collect, keep, take, or build wealth at all. Apparently it's easier for a camel to get involved in knitting than a wealthy, selfish Christian to get into heaven. Jesus might tell them, "I don't know you." and "What you did to the smallest, you've done to me." And right now, the big whale Christians love to screw the small fish over. In fact, some non-Christian wealthy have shown more care for society and those in need. Go figure. Love of money is dangerous, even for Christians.

 

[74x12]

Neither is capitalism as it is currently being practiced. In fact, they are very similar, I think, except the capitalists aren't giving most of their wealth to the church. They're using it to enslave everyone else to their own benefit. Which is even worse, don't you think?

Yes, the capitalism of today is corrupt from the top. And it's the banks at the top. Even corporations are below the banks in this world system. As the scripture says "love of money is the root of all evil". Well, banks control the money! So they control all evil.

I just don't believe that socialism and especially not communism will fix the problem.

For example we Americans are told that Europe is a good example of successful socialism. But their politicians in the EU are corrupt like ours and their banks are still corrupt and super rich. It seems to me that this socialism is not all equality like liberals want it to be. In fact as in Animal Farm; everyone is equal but it's just that some people are more equal than others.

 

[dianaiad]

Note that the post you replied to was specifically referring to Christian Evangelicals supporting Trump, not conservatives. In other words, the focus was on the hypocrisy of Christians supporting a man who embodies everything that should be unacceptable in their religion.

that doesn't lessen the hypocrisy. Why can't certain Christian evangelicals support Trump when they like his politics? Why can't they excuse any wrong doings that the other side of the aisle claims he has done, or character flaws they say he has?

After all, those who criticize them for doing so have (I repeat...) supported very bad behavior in the folks whose politics THEY like.

.....and I will point out here that, unlike Clinton, Trump at least understands and respects the word 'no,' even if he is a jerk about it later.

As for me, I don't know a single politician in Washington who hasn't committed all sorts of acts that would be unacceptable in my religion.

Wait. There is one. He even ran for president, but the evangelicals didn't like him either. I mean, he is very moral, extremely ethical...and even had the same political ideas they had, mostly.

But he was a Mormon. and they'd rather lose the White House and the Senate and the House than have a Mormon there, however much they might agree with him politically.

I don't understand evangelicals.

However, that doesn't mean that the liberals criticizing them aren't hypocrites.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Government never turns a profit. It works via inefficiency, waste and deficit spending. This is not how nature works. Nature will create overflowing abundance. Fruitful and multiply means to create more than you started with. One seed from a fruit, can makes a second plant, which can produce more fruit and more seeds, etc.,

A baby is a profit from sex. Two become three. The left prefers deficit style sex and reproduction. This could be explained as having sex, creating disease, and ending up with fewer people. Abortion makes it a wash.

Profit and creating wealth adds to the GNP. This is being fruitful and multiplying. Big Government and deficits makes a tree with rotten fruit that is thrown away only to contaminate other trees; deficit spending.

Trump has been running deficits, since nobody in Washington wants to change the status quo.

But he is nevertheless being fruitful and multiplying via jobs and GNP. The tax cuts also put more money in the hands of citizens, who are able to be fruitful and multiple via the private sector. It would not be fruitful if left to the Government to spend or invest.

Profit over people and our planet is wrong. Government is not out to make a profit, they are there to help. A baby is a profit? Seriously? One thing I do agree with the Bible on is that the love of money is the root of evil.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, do you believe this is a command that one must follow ?

Not me personally, no. I'd personally be happier just to disregard the whole Bible.

Personally, I think the passage reads like a "just-so" story to explain the nature of things for the culture that wrote it:

- snakes didn't (and still don't) have legs, so the story explains that this was ordained by God.

- women suffer in childbirth, so the story explains that this was ordained by God.

- men have to toil in manual labour, so the story explains that this was ordained by God.

Are disabled people, or those on welfare breaking this command as well ?

You tell me. How does this passage inform your beliefs?

No, God was making an observation about how things had changed in the lives of humans.

It doesn't read that way to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I guess it would be too much to ask for you to keep your posts relevant to the thread topic, eh?

 

[PureX]

Yes, the capitalism of today is corrupt from the top. And it's the banks at the top. Even corporations are below the banks in this world system. As the scripture says "love of money is the root of all evil". Well, banks control the money! So they control all evil.

I just don't believe that socialism and especially not communism will fix the problem.

For example we Americans are told that Europe is a good example of successful socialism. But their politicians in the EU are corrupt like ours and their banks are still corrupt and super rich. It seems to me that this socialism is not all equality like liberals want it to be. In fact as in Animal Farm; everyone is equal but it's just that some people are more equal than others.

Corruption will destroy ANY system. It has to be stopped, regardless. That does not negate the value of some systems over others, however. And people are doing very well in some of the northern European nations that employ socialist ideas and practices. If you're looking for excuses to dismiss this, I'm sure you'll find them. But that's neither here nor there to the fact of it.

 

[exchemist]

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?

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/

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.

 

[stvdv]

Christians are, and always have been, the kind of people Jesus despised

Christians turning into "Anti-Christs"?

That's a way to do "speed things up"
As some believe Jesus returns after A.C

 

[stvdv]

"Be fruitful and multiply" gets a lot of play.

Kind of obvious to me:
1) Christians like sex
2) Christians want to evangelize the world