NationStates Jolt Archive

What's the Christian view towards economies? Despite their tough moral stance (typical of conservatives and rightists), their values of care and concern (of society's unfornate) can be seen as socialist. This is common in many other faiths as well.

It has been commented before that in the Industrial revolution, scientific rationalism, combining with the capitalism, soon centered on the capitalistic values struggle and competition (replacing on the traditional care and concern), thus eroding Christianity even further. Prior to the industrial age, where Christian supersitions* (many were church-goers, despite not knowing too much about the Scriptures) were prevalent, we should note that in many cases, the economy was feudalistic subsistence production, with the majority of the population working in agriculture (primarily to feed themselves).

On a miscellaneous but interesting note, industrialization occurred much quicker in Protestant nations (Britain, America, Germany) than in Catholic nations (Spain, Italy, Mexico, France).



*It can be referred to as supersition, as despite the church being the center of the community, the blind worship of God was also present with a lack of knowledge in Christian doctrines. Morals could also be corrupted easily as not everyone pursued an alleged godly life, typical of the Amish.

Please note that I myself am not Christian, but I do see this discussion as interesting.

I don't believe there is a Christian economic stance. Why? After all, Christ did say to care for our fellow man, but...

Leftists will say that it means the government should do it.
Right wingers will say we should do it on a personal basis, through charity.


I tend to agree with the right wingers.

Did the Bible not give hints over how the economy should be run? I know for a fact that Christians hate those godless commies, but they are the ones that seems have started welfarism. LOL!

I don't really think the Bible takes a standpoint on economics. It does encourage giving to the poor, but it doesn't really talk about how much the goverment should take part in it.

See, it depends on how you interpret it. The Bible never clearly states "Governments should provide welfare benefits of 10%..."

I don't believe Christ was a philosopher on government. After all, he never bothered to change the one he lived in. Christ was a teacher on personal and moral values. Of course people should help other people---but that's quite different from having the government seize your cash and hand it over to an alcoholic bum.

Honestly, I think that Christians lean towards the right-wing style way of the economic points, but I was raised southern Baptist. I think there are far to many denominations of the Christian religion to have a clearly set option, some veer far-left some far-right. From a main stream American Christian stand point I think the ones that stand out and voice themselves the most are the Baptist and the Evangelical groups who stand on the right side of politics (Bush, Reagan). Catholics in the traditional since have been key supporters to the left-wing line of thinkers, JFK, Jimmy Carter, and so on.

acts 2:44-45

All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

Honestly, I think that Christians lean towards the right-wing style way of the economic points, but I was raised southern Baptist. I think there are far to many denominations of the Christian religion to have a clearly set option, some veer far-left some far-right. From a main stream American Christian stand point I think the ones that stand out and voice themselves the most are the Baptist and the Evangelical groups who stand on the right side of politics (Bush, Reagan). Catholics in the traditional since have been key supporters to the left-wing line of thinkers, JFK, Jimmy Carter, and so on.

Hmm... interesting.

See, it depends on how you interpret it. The Bible never clearly states "Governments should provide welfare benefits of 10%..."

I don't believe Christ was a philosopher on government. After all, he never bothered to change the one he lived in. Christ was a teacher on personal and moral values. Of course people should help other people---but that's quite different from having the government seize your cash and hand it over to an alcoholic bum.

If you read about Gandhi's interpretation of the teachings of Jesus you will see that the example set by the individual is intended to influence society and thus the government.

The teachings of Jesus was created in a time where socialism and capitalism did not exist. Everybody (I'm talking 90%) were peasant farmers that produced a subsistence.

Do any of you actully know anything about Socialism? Christian goverments are never socialists in their economy. That is the stupidest damn thing i have ever heard in my life.

While the Bible does not have an explicit economic policy in mind, there is a great deal in both the Old and the New Testaments that has a great deal to do with state economic policy, as well as economic theory.

For instance, many people would recognize the maxim "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" as a Marxist one, but fewer would also recognize it as a quotation out of the New Testament, Timothy to be exact. Moreover, there are quite a few laws in the Levitican and Deuteronomical laws that would have modern capitalists up in arms: a return of land to the original owners every seven years, a mandatory tithing of 10% of income to the poor every year, etc.

Finally, there is the issue of what the Bible, taken as a whole, stands for. Most people if you asked them what kind of values the Bible endorses, would respond that altruistic values are the one's that Jesus and the Old Testament come out most strongly for; that you should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. This is completely at odds with the rational self-interest model that modern capitalism assumes. As such, you may well conclude that while the Bible is hardly endorsing of full-blown communism (primarily because communism denies the existence of God, something that is incompatible with the Bible), it sure as hell isn't a treatise on the magical world of modern capitalism, either.

Do any of you actully know anything about Socialism? Christian goverments are never socialists in their economy. That is the stupidest damn thing i have ever heard in my life.

I'm not sure about the Vatican's economy (probably reliant on donations from followers), but how many other Christian theocracies are there?

See, but the Bible does have altruistic messages. Messages that are for individual people. What good is charity if it involves the government forcing you to partake in it? Are you really being charitable then?

When I was in high school, there was this modernist Christian biology teacher (yes, he believed that God 'created' the species by guiding them through evolution) who claimed that Christianity was "Godly socialism".

In a socialist economy everyone is equal. Name 1 christian economy that is like that.

In a socialist economy everyone is equal. Name 1 christian economy that is like that.

Why don't you name one sect of Chrisitanity that doesn't follow the value of charity?

Charity is a form of voluntary welfarism.

See, but the Bible does have altruistic messages. Messages that are for individual people. What good is charity if it involves the government forcing you to partake in it? Are you really being charitable then?

But in a democracy isn't it the individuals right to influence the laws by which they are governed?

Why don't you name one sect of Chrisitanity that doesn't follow the value of charity?

Charity is a form of voluntary welfarism.Um this is my point. Charity has nothing to do with Socialism. No one give charity in Socialism, everyone works for their money and everyone gets paid the same and everyone is givin a job.

See, but the Bible does have altruistic messages. Messages that are for individual people. What good is charity if it involves the government forcing you to partake in it? Are you really being charitable then?

The Church works in subtle ways. If you're a church-goer, and one person (usually the most devout man in your presence) starts donating, after the reverend/priest makes a suggestion for donation, everyone else feels guilty and gives a part of their money. Religion is your second tax department. And please do not forget that tithing was practiced until the 19th Century.

In a socialist economy everyone is equal. Name 1 christian economy that is like that.

The early Jesuits.

But in a democracy isn't it the individuals right to influence the laws by which they are governed?
Yes, but it should not be done as one whole forced mass. I don't want the government distributing my money. I want to be able to choose the people and organizations I deem deserving of charity. The government does it blindly.

Also, there is always a minority that would disagree but still be forced to pay for the welfare.

In a socialist economy everyone is equal. Name 1 christian economy that is like that.

the earliest christian communities.

In a socialist economy everyone is equal. Name 1 christian economy that is like that.

There are many Hutterite and Amish colonies (based on Christian scriptures) which are probably the most socialist/communist societies in the world, and due to their small size and unity in belief are among the few that have worked in history. There are also some communist Hindu villages in India that have worked fairly well.

But communism only works in small societies where all members hold tightly to the same basic beliefs and goals. Communism does not work in large or heterogenous societies.

Anyway, as for the earlier quote about the Christian community that shared everything, it later disbanded because it didn't work if I remember correctly.

The early Jesuits.Yea and how long ago was that? That was in the days when people were actully afraid something bad would happen to them if they disobeyed god.

There are many Hutterite and Amish colonies (based on Christian scriptures) which are probably the most socialist/communist societies in the world, and due to their small size and unity in belief are among the few that have worked in history. There are also some communist Hindu villages in India that have worked fairly well.

I have to agree on that one. Damn the Amish!

The early Jesuits.

If they are equal, it would on be in property. The priests were always considered one step above those in the pews. Spiritually, Catholicism was not equal.

There are many Hutterite and Amish colonies (based on Christian scriptures) which are probably the most socialist/communist societies in the world, and due to their small size and unity in belief are among the few that have worked in history. There are also some communist Hindu villages in India that have worked fairly well.

But communism only works in small societies where all members hold tightly to the same basic beliefs and goals. Communism does not work in large or heterogenous societies.

Anyway, as for the earlier quote about the Christian community that shared everything, it later disbanded because it didn't work if I remember correctly.Yea because they are small and easy to rule. But big countries it is impossible to have socialism, because people are corrupt and fuck up the government when it gets out of control. And then the asshole look for a way to get ahead of everyone and then capitalism is born, where everyone is curropt and they kill to get ahead of others.

If you're gonna have complete equality, you might as well have every man walk around in the raw with his dong trimmed to a standard length!

Yes, but it should not be done as one whole forced mass. I don't want the government distributing my money. I want to be able to choose the people and organizations I deem deserving of charity. The government does it blindly.

Also, there is always a minority that would disagree but still be forced to pay for the welfare.

So a Christian government implies a government that makes economic decisions for the individual?

Christ was a teacher on personal and moral values. Of course people should help other people---but that's quite different from having the government seize your cash and hand it over to an alcoholic bum.

Hear hear! I'm all for Christian morality and values and against public health for alcoholic bums. Remember, "It is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than an alcoholic bum to get into heaven." And, "What you do to the least of us, you do to me. Unless it's an alcoholic bum."

See, but the Bible does have altruistic messages. Messages that are for individual people. What good is charity if it involves the government forcing you to partake in it? Are you really being charitable then?

No, you aren't. But then again, the poor aren't paying the price for your lack of Christian spirit, either. You seem to have the mistaken idea that the purpose of the religious state is purely to promote salvation. It isn't: it's also to promote the general good of the population, and theocrats definately didn't interpret that to mean that everyone gets complete and unfettered right to their property. That was a "right" that only became a political issue in the late 1500's. Before that, it wasn't your land; it was the king's, and by extension God's land, and he therefore had greater claim to the fruits produced by that land than you did. Beyond what you needed to survive, the product was His, not yours.

Moreover, you are forgetting first that the state in the Levitican/Deuteronomical sense would be the one that would collect that 10%, and that 10% was more or less mandatory. I suppose you could not pay it, but I'd also expect that you might get thrown out of Israel for doing that, too. Second, you are forgetting that the state was (and still is) the only entity with enough manpower and distribution capabilities to actually employ that welfare money consistently and stably.

Most of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scholars who interpreted Scripture would have ripped the libertarian conception of what a state should do to shreds as completely antithetical to their religious beliefs.

If they are equal, it would on be in property. The priests were always considered one step above those in the pews. Spiritually, Catholicism was not equal.

On August 15, 1534, Ignatius and six other students (Peter Faber, Francis Xavier, Alfonso Salmeron, James Lainez, and Nicholas Bobadilla, Spaniards, and Simon Rodrigues, a Portuguese) met in Montmartre outside Paris, probably near the modern Chapel of St Denys, Rue Antoinette, and binding themselves by a vow of poverty and chastity, founded the Society of Jesus - to "enter upon hospital and missionary work in Jerusalem, or to go without questioning wherever the pope might direct".

encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Jesuit

During the last supper Jesus got down on his hands and knees and cleaned the feet of his disciples to show them that no one is above anyone else.

This poll is overly simplistic, for one main reason: there is a great deal of difference between Catholic/Orthodox and Protestant viewpoints on the subject. Ever hear of something called the "Protestant Ethic?" It ties in somewhat with predestination, the idea that God has already decided who's going to Heaven or not. Nothing you can do will change this. The same idea is shown in the evangelical question, "are you saved?" In other words, once you accept Jesus as your personal Savior, you're guaranteed, so to speak. To get back to economics, though - a prevalent Protestant viewpoint is that earthly prosperity is a sign God is smiling on you - you're an Elite, likely to be Heaven-bound. Of course, if you're poor that says something too. Protestants and evangelicals therefore tend to espouse a laissez-faire, free capitalist economy.
Catholics, on the other hand, believe that good works are the essential sign of a Godly person, not earthly wealth, and so they are far more socially conscious. Although this doesn't necessarily mean a baby-sitter government, it does mean government action to curb capitalistic excesses such as environmental plunder, unliveable wage, and sweatshops.

You seem to have the mistaken idea that the purpose of the religious state is purely to promote salvation. It isn't: .
Umm, ys it is. Ever heard of Job?

There really is no Dogma on politics or economics within the Church. "Give to Cezar what is Cezars" was not exactly an endorsement of Rome, only a reminder that there is no place for things of the Earth in Heaven. God has no concern.

The Bible does teach charity as well as personal responsibility. Where socialism is involved it teches the opposite - no personal reasponsibility and charity is mandated - not exactly freedom.

A capitalist economy does teach personal responsibility, but there is no quarter for charity. There is nothing wrong with that - no church should be all encompasing and nor should a government. That is why you often see a capitalist economy among christian based governments; One picks up where the other leaves off. Business is about personal responsibility, income and worldly goods and Church is about charity, spirituality and heavenly concerns. Any system which tries to cross over on these always approaches totalitarianism.

If Jesus had thought you could legislate morality he would not have created a church, he would have created a nation. In fact he was most often combatting the legalism of the pharisees. Jesus knew that a perfect world would not come about based solely on actions, it would come about based on what is inside your heart.

I'd have to say that a Christian view towards economies is neatly summed up in this phrase "Leave unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"

Basically, live your life good, but allow those who would strive for worldly power, money, authority and whatever do so.

For instance, many people would recognize the maxim "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" as a Marxist one, but fewer would also recognize it as a quotation out of the New Testament, Timothy to be exact.

you don't happen to have an exact cite on that, do you? i know that something like it is in acts too.

acts 4:32-35

"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."

interestingly, in the next chapter there is a story about a couple being struck dead for not giving up all of the money they got for selling some property to the community (acts 5:1-11). that's not even socialism - that's divine stalinism.

I'm not Christian, but I couldn't resist.

you don't happen to have an exact cite on that, do you? i know that something like it is in acts too.

acts 4:32-35

"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."

interestingly, in the next chapter there is a story about a couple being struck dead for not giving up all of the money they got for selling some property to the community (acts 5:1-11). that's not even socialism - that's divine stalinism.

Most of the stories like this in the new and old testament have more to do with sacrafice and not loving money more than God than government. In one instance Jesus tells a young man that to get into heaven he must give away all his health, but in the other he hands with Nicodameus, who is rich. The difference is, Nic loved the lord more than his wealth, sadly the young man did not. Jesus didn't ask nic to give it up because Nic didn't it let it interfere with his faith.

interestingly, in the next chapter there is a story about a couple being struck dead for not giving up all of the money they got for selling some property to the community (acts 5:1-11). that's not even socialism - that's divine stalinism.

Actually they were struck down for publicly exaggerating the amount they gave to the church. Think of it was a punishment for fraud.

u can't group christians into one economic viewpoint...that's like saying all atheists are capitalists...it just can't be done

interestingly, in the next chapter there is a story about a couple being struck dead for not giving up all of the money they got for selling some property to the community (acts 5:1-11). that's not even socialism - that's divine stalinism.

They were struck dead for lying before God, not for not donating all their money to the community.

They were struck dead for lying before God, not for not donating all their money to the community.

but the reason they lied was because they were expected to give it all - they would not have lied if giving most was good enough.

And Jesus said,

Giveth not to the poor, for they hath made their own bed to layeth down in.

Tis better for one thousand hungry to starve, than to giveth a single lazy shirker a free lunch.

Blessed are the rich, for they investeth into the church.

The Lord God helps those who help themselves, the rest shall be forsook.

If a child goes hungry, let their parents be held accountable. Bring them to the square and stone them as a lesson to all. But feed not or clothe that orphan child, as they are seed of the unworthy.

Judge others harshly, lest they judge you first.

God hath bestowed those rights unto man that only he can keep with raised sword. The meek are completely forsooked.

Would a christian really be concerned bout economic policy? Surely such a concern by a christian would lead to the christian's being corruption by concern for money and business interests.

See, but the Bible does have altruistic messages. Messages that are for individual people. What good is charity if it involves the government forcing you to partake in it? Are you really being charitable then?

In a democracy the people's collective tendency to charity will result in a government that taxes heavily for social welfare causes.

In a democracy of morally bankrupt skinflints who pays lip service to the idea that charity is a virtue because so many of their immoral beliefs are based on a literal interpretatoin of a book that demands charity the government will reflect this in a tendency towards low social welfare and a lot of self-rightous bloviating about how individual charity is better that government sponserd social welfare.

Would a christian really be concerned bout economic policy? Surely such a concern by a christian would lead to the christian's being corruption by concern for money and business interests.

Jesus himself was concerned with money. He said that you should sell everything you own and give the money to the poor. He said that a rich man is less likely to get into heaven that a camel is to pass through the eye of a needle. Concern is not synonymous with desire for.

If people's conscience really leaned towards Christ they would happily endorse a socialist style government with a small peace-time military. But they don't so you end up with a religion of greed and intolerance masquerading as Christianity.

Jesus himself was concerned with money. He said that you should sell everything you own and give the money to the poor. He said that a rich man is less likely to get into heaven that a camel is to pass through the eye of a needle. Concern is not synonymous with desire for.

If people's conscience really leaned towards Christ they would happily endorse a socialist style government with a small peace-time military. But they don't so you end up with a religion of greed and intolerance masquerading as Christianity.

No, I addressed this earlier. Sorry if you missed my post. Jesus said you should put notihing above the Lord. If you value money more than the Lord, then give it all away. If your priorities are in order then that is unnecessary. Jesus considers Earthly matters unimportant. What you do with your money is of no concenquence to him, so long as you don't put it, or anything else, above God.

the Bible is hardly endorsing of full-blown communism (primarily because communism denies the existence of God, something that is incompatible with the Bible), it sure as hell isn't a treatise on the magical world of modern capitalism, either.
Most Communism has only been atheist since Marx. Communism existed before Marx and there are still vast numbers of religious Christians on the left.

Christian goverments are never socialists in their economy.
Where is your evidence for this assertion?

In a socialist economy everyone is equal. Name 1 christian economy that is like that.
What is a Christian economy? Name such a country.
I can provide an example: The True Levellers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers_(True_Levellers))

What good is charity if it involves the government forcing you to partake in it? Are you really being charitable then?
You're not being charitable in theory, but in effect you are being charitable.

I want to be able to choose the people and organizations I deem deserving of charity. The government does it blindly.
I agree. Welfare is really not a good system, but it's the best out of all of them that we've tried.

Yea and how long ago was that? That was in the days when people were actully afraid something bad would happen to them if they disobeyed god.
So you concede that Christian economics are socialist?

I don't think the Diggers are a good arguement considering that their communist organization was more concerned with equality and political gain than religion, although they were present in an era where a England's state church was in limbo, they were amongst some of the groups that tolerate different views towards religion.

but the reason they lied was because they were expected to give it all - they would not have lied if giving most was good enough.
3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God." (Acts 5:3-4)

"Surely a rich man is as likely to get into heaven as a camel is to get through the eye of a needle." - Jesus

A bad paraphrase, and I don't know the chapter and verse. But bottom line is; Jesus weren't no capitalist.

Oh and everyone on this thread should read "Religion and the Rise of Capitalism" by RH Tawney. About how religious thought influenced the development of capitalism, and vice versa.

Did the Bible not give hints over how the economy should be run? I know for a fact that Christians hate those godless commies, but they are the ones that seems have started welfarism. LOL!

I thought the salvation army and the general had more to do with welfarism, long before the communist governments came to power. I think it was in the 1850s.

Christians don't hate the godless commies....if they did they would not be obeying Christ. It is the godless ideals of communism that is directly opposed to the teaching of Christ that the Christians hate.

Christians can agree on much of the teachings of the Bible, regarding economy, and still differ over what the role of the government is in economy. I disagree with the views of some of my own family members (who are also Christians). Yet we both agree to the teachings of Christ as truth.

And Jesus said,

Giveth not to the poor, for they hath made their own bed to layeth down in.

Tis better for one thousand hungry to starve, than to giveth a single lazy shirker a free lunch.

Blessed are the rich, for they investeth into the church.

The Lord God helps those who help themselves, the rest shall be forsook.

If a child goes hungry, let their parents be held accountable. Bring them to the square and stone them as a lesson to all. But feed not or clothe that orphan child, as they are seed of the unworthy.

Judge others harshly, lest they judge you first.

God hath bestowed those rights unto man that only he can keep with raised sword. The meek are completely forsooked.

That may be your teaching, but it doesn't sound at all like Christ's.

"Surely a rich man is as likely to get into heaven as a camel is to get through the eye of a needle." - Jesus

A bad paraphrase, and I don't know the chapter and verse. But bottom line is; Jesus weren't no capitalist.

If your definition of a capitalist is someone who worships wealth, then you are right, Jesus was no capitalist. But I thought the definition should be more like 'let it go, let it be free', used in reference to buying and selling and so forth. So it is possible that the teachings of Jesus do not conflict with capitalism, particularly a capitalism that has not become covetous of wealth and power, but is likely to see a social welfare system as being not a part of capitalism, and even helpful for the capitalistic spirit.

Well ... the party that supplied the prime minister of the Netherlands is the Christian Democratic Appeal. Recently it has spoken out against the large divide in salaries between managers and workers, calling the topsalaries "signs of greed" and "unchristian". It seems they do not favour pure capitalism.

That said, I consider the ideal of communism (everyone working for the benefit of their fellow men) very similar to Christianity.

I don't think the Diggers are a good arguement considering that their communist organization was more concerned with equality and political gain than religion, although they were present in an era where a England's state church was in limbo, they were amongst some of the groups that tolerate different views towards religion.
Yes, it is a valid example.
Their original name came from their belief in Christian communism based upon a specific passage in the Book of Acts. The Diggers attempted to reform (by "levelling" real property) the existing social order with an agrarian lifestyle based upon their ideas for the creation of small egalitarian rural communities.

Their beliefs came from the Bible. Thus, this group of Christians was communist.

I think that that defining a universal Christian economic viewpoint as either communist or capitallist is silly. Christianity cannot possibly support an economy where greed is the main economic fuel. However, the transition to a communist society requires people to give up wealth, and not everyone will. That means the "central planning authority" would have to, in a manner of speaking, steal the property of individuals, also contrary to Christian morals.

I think Christianity supports a economy where people are not deprived of propery, and where charity is the main driving force, kind-of a utopian medium between capitalism and communism.

Don't expect me to defend my stance. I'm not in the mood to go quoting scripture...

Well ... the party that supplied the prime minister of the Netherlands is the Christian Democratic Appeal. Recently it has spoken out against the large divide in salaries between managers and workers, calling the topsalaries "signs of greed" and "unchristian". It seems they do not favour pure capitalism.

That said, I consider the ideal of communism (everyone working for the benefit of their fellow men) very similar to Christianity.

Communism, in my opinion, does have some similarities, I will agree. however, the big difference seems to be that everyone is forced to share in communism. There are laws that enforce 'equality'. The Christian church of the Acts was a situation where everyone was also sharing, but it was decidedly voluntary. And since it was voluntary, a private issue, it was not decision by the leaders, thus no part of their government. Actually, this is what Christianity should look like. I think it has fallen from this to some degree. however, when you think about all the Christian sponsored aid work that goes on around the world, you can still see signs of the comunal type ideals of the early church.
thus, I believe that Christianity should never force anyone to part with their money. that is purely a thing between God and the individual. Since Jesus claimed to be God, he also had the right to tell people to give their money to the poor. But the church definitely does not have this right. They can encourage it, but not force it. This point IMO makes christianity rather different from communism.

<snip> This point IMO makes christianity rather different from communism.

Definately agreed- the two are far from identical. But some of the prime ideals are shared. The implementation of those ideals however isn't.

Sadly, this thread has deterioriated from "What's the Christian view towards economies?" to "What do non-christians think christians view towards economies should be?"

So far, the non-christians have ignored the posts of christians in their attempts to make ther same old tired points.

So really, this thread wasn't at all about learning christian economic opinions.

Definately agreed- the two are far from identical. But some of the prime ideals are shared. The implementation of those ideals however isn't.

Perhaps the same could be argued in the case of capitalism, depending on your definition of capitalism. But there is no doubt that the Bible writers were clear in their thoughts on poverty that results from a lack of willingness to work..

If you think of capitalism as synomynous with greed, then of course there should be no comparison between the ideals of Christianity and capitalism. But the inventors of capitalism did not necessarily think of it as the perverse state that it seems to be thought of today, where it is the best was to get wealth and power.
Perhaps they thought that 'let it go, let it be free' was simply a way of keeping corrupt government officials from retarding economical growth.
If you could find an uncorrupted form of capitalism, free of greed and corruption, then you would probably find that it also had much in common with the early church community. Same goes for communism. But this is exactly my point.

Sadly, this thread has deterioriated from "What's the Christian view towards economies?" to "What do non-christians think christians view towards economies should be?"

So far, the non-christians have ignored the posts of christians in their attempts to make ther same old tired points.

So really, this thread wasn't at all about learning christian economic opinions.

Lead on, brother.

If your definition of a capitalist is someone who worships wealth, then you are right, Jesus was no capitalist. But I thought the definition should be more like 'let it go, let it be free', used in reference to buying and selling and so forth. So it is possible that the teachings of Jesus do not conflict with capitalism, particularly a capitalism that has not become covetous of wealth and power, but is likely to see a social welfare system as being not a part of capitalism, and even helpful for the capitalistic spirit.

Whatever capitalism may be in theory, in practice it is the unrelenting pursuit of profit and accumulation of wealth.

The system you describe that tolerates a social welfare system is a mised economy.

Sadly, this thread has deterioriated from "What's the Christian view towards economies?" to "What do non-christians think christians view towards economies should be?"

So far, the non-christians have ignored the posts of christians in their attempts to make ther same old tired points.

So really, this thread wasn't at all about learning christian economic opinions.

Do you always assume people are non-Christians just because they dom't share your interpretation of the Bible?