NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently I have been torn between the idea of my faith and my core ideologies. As it is plainly and painstakingly obvious, I am highly capitalist and I admire individual power and success. Herein lies the problem. Christianity is typically a faith resting on the base premise of charity, collectivist ideals and a general disdain for wealth, something I cannot personally sympathise with.

So, my question then is, is any form of Christianity compatible with its twin pillar, Capitalism? Often I have heard Protestantism is the free-marketeer's brand of Christendom. Is this so? Moreover, is any faith compatible with it, notwithstanding Satanism and perhaps Judaism? I am not open to the notion of becoming faithless; merely seeking to see if I can reconcile my faith with personal beliefs.

Finally, this is a question of the faith's compatibility with Capitalism, not about the relative merits/demerits of it nor those particular to Christianity. So focus the debate on that. Not irrelevant tangents.

Christianity is typically a faith resting on the base premise of charity

Charity? Oh, my Christian god, what a fucking nightmare.

Often I have heard Protestantism is the free-marketeer's brand of Christendom. Is this so?

You may want to stay clear of proper Lutheranism.

Charity? Oh, my Christian god, what a fucking nightmare.
How so?

You may want to stay clear of Lutheranism.
I've been told so (of that and Calvinism); why exactly?

How so?

I'm mocking you. Charity is one of the few things I can appreciate in Christianity. It's just too bad a lot of Christians have a view such as your own when it comes to it.

I've been told so (of that and Calvinism); why exactly?

I've no explanation. Lutherans, at least the Swedish ones, just seem too "nice" for capitalism.

Calvinists. Umm, don't get me started on them. Let's just say, if there is a sect of Christianity I dislike more than Catholicism/Orthodoxism, it's Calvinism...

I'm mocking you. Charity is one of the few things I can appreciate in Christianity. It's just too bad a lot of Christians have a view such as your own when it comes to it.
I haven't a problem with charity as a concept itself, as in voluntarily giving to those in need. It's simply that the faith seems to condemn the concept of wealth in all its entirety.


Calvinists. Umm, don't get me started on them. Let's just say, if there is a sect of Christianity I dislike more than Catholicism/Orthodoxism, it's Calvinism...
Apparently they believe in predetermination, which I find absurd.

Recently I have been torn between the idea of my faith and my core ideologies. As it is plainly and painstakingly obvious, I am highly capitalist and I admire individual power and success. Herein lies the problem. Christianity is typically a faith resting on the base premise of charity, collectivist ideals and a general disdain for wealth, something I cannot personally sympathise with.

So, my question then is, is any form of Christianity compatible with its twin pillar, Capitalism? Often I have heard Protestantism is the free-marketeer's brand of Christendom. Is this so? Moreover, is any faith compatible with it, notwithstanding Satanism and perhaps Judaism? I am not open to the notion of becoming faithless; merely seeking to see if I can reconcile my faith with personal beliefs.

Finally, this is a question of the faith's compatibility with Capitalism, not about the relative merits/demerits of it nor those particular to Christianity. So focus the debate on that. Not irrelevant tangents.
If you're going to pick a religion based on who accepts wealth, why don't you drop your hypocritical stance and join me in Hell?

Capitalism is compatible with Christianity, because charity from the rich to the poor can still theoretically take place even in a capitalist government. If the big man stands up for the little man, then it's fine. However, practice has shown that this is very definitely not the case. Case in point, Reaganomics. Theoretically those tax cuts for the rich should be invested and trickle down to the poor, but the rich just keep it for themselves because that's human nature. Which is why the Bush tax cuts suck ass. But I digress.

In short, capitalism meshes well with Christianity, but human nature definitely doesn't, and capitalism plays to the dark side of human nature. So basically it doesn't work so well.

The Protestant thing is kinda bull, since there are so many different forms of it. Off the top of my head I can think of like five very different Protestant groups, not to mention the subdivisions thereof.

I don't think Christianity condemns wealth, but rather the coveting of wealth. It de-emphasizes it, because people in general put too much emphasis on wealth. Wealth isn't inherently bad, it's not frowned upon to be wealthy, like all things it's what you do with it that matters more. So I do not think Christianity is incompatible with Capitalism at all.

There are some Christians which will profess to believe in the free market. But they don't understand capitalism, and they don't really want to.

Capitalism on its most basic level is materialistic, individualist and based on rational selfishness and personal judgement.

Christianity (as most other religions) is spiritual, collectivist and based on faith and divine judgement.

There is such a thing as Christian Economics, but that has nothing to do with capitalism. Instead they stand for rather socialist ideals of equality etc.

A few quick articles I found:
http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/2001_fall/woehrling.html
http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/2236_47e.htm
http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/whatsice.htm

Also, I believe the Mondragon project was started by a priest:
http://www.justpeace.org/mondragon.htm

So, no, one cannot be both Christian and Capitalist without grossly distorting either.

I haven't a problem with charity as a concept itself, as in voluntarily giving to those in need. It's simply that the faith seems to condemn the concept of wealth in all its entirety.

And yet churches have managed to be rich like trolls, as we say. The pope certainly doesn't look like he's in need... so, I don't think the faith has something against wealth. It just has something against hoarding that wealth and "not giving back to the community" à la "I'm still Jenny from the block, used to have a little, now I have a lot, no matter where I go I know where I came from"-J.Lo.

Sorry, that song was just on the radio. It fit.

If you're going to pick a religion based on who accepts wealth, why don't you drop your hypocritical stance and join me in Hell?
he has a point =/

Christianity and capitalism are far from incompatable. The thing you have to always remember is that the wealth you recieve is ultimately, not your own. You can be wealthy, but do not become a lover of wealth. You cannot love both God and money. Giving is what breaks the hold that materialism has on our lives.

If you're going to pick a religion based on who accepts wealth, why don't you drop your hypocritical stance and join me in Hell?
And your faith would be? Please drop the little RP act if that is what you have planned. I'm not in the mood to entertain you.

Apparently they believe in predetermination, which I find absurd.

That, and so many of them use it as an excuse for being utter douches to people. "What happened is meant to happen, so suck it!" that sort of thing.

There are some Christians which will profess to believe in the free market. But they don't understand capitalism, and they don't really want to.

Capitalism on its most basic level is materialistic, individualist and based on rational selfishness and personal judgement.

Christianity (as most other religions) is spiritual, collectivist and based on faith and divine judgement.

There is such a thing as Christian Economics, but that has nothing to do with capitalism. Instead they stand for rather socialist ideals of equality etc.

A few quick articles I found:
http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/2001_fall/woehrling.html
http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/2236_47e.htm
http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/whatsice.htm

Also, I believe the Mondragon project was started by a priest:
http://www.justpeace.org/mondragon.htm

So, no, one cannot be both Christian and Capitalist without grossly distorting either.

This seeming contradiction is because you are comparing apples and oranges. Christianity is a religion involving spirituality. Capitalism is an economic system involving finance management. They are not mutally exclusive and one doesn't have to distort one to partake of the other.

And yet churches have managed to be rich like trolls, as we say. The pope certainly doesn't look like he's in need... so, I don't think the faith has something against wealth. It just has something against hoarding that wealth and "not giving back to the community" à la "I'm still Jenny from the block, used to have a little, now I have a lot, no matter where I go I know where I came from"-J.Lo.

Sorry, that song was just on the radio. It fit.
Peculiarly enough, I had the same song on. In any case, that is what disturbs me; the hypocrisy. The condemnation of wealth and greed within the Bible, yet the actual divergence when it comes to practice.

So, no, one cannot be both Christian and Capitalist without grossly distorting either.
From reading the articles you have posted, I can tell that there is a misunderstanding of the concept.

Yet, I would still like to see if the concepts can be reconciled.

Christianity and capitalism are far from incompatable. The thing you have to always remember is that the wealth you recieve is ultimately, not your own. You can be wealthy, but do not become a lover of wealth. You cannot love both God and money. Giving is what breaks the hold that materialism has on our lives.
I LOVE YOU.

xD got a little carried away there. but that is the most true thing I've ever read on this stupid forum.

I have a friend who tells me I can't be a true Christian if I'm not a socialist because Jesus taught equality. Telling somebody they can't be a part of ANY religion because of their political stance is a filthy piece of bullcrap that needs to be met with rabid face-beatings.

And for the record, you don't have to believe in state-enforced equality to believe in equality.

If you regard capitalism as meaning that you have to love money and be greedy then yes, they don't mix. The fact is being wealthy is not in itself sinful. Greed is sinful. Pride is sinful.

They are not mutally exclusive and one doesn't have to distort one to partake of the other.
If you just want to partake in it, yes. But then, you can be a socialist and partake in capitalism.

The question is whether you are a real supporter of the system, because that involves a lot more deep thinking, during which one invariably has to choose between either accepting Christian assumptions and not following capitalist thought to the end (or beginning as it were), or accepting capitalist assumptions and rejecting Christianity.

Peculiarly enough, I had the same song on. In any case, that is what disturbs me; the hypocrisy. The condemnation of wealth and greed within the Bible, yet the actual divergence when it comes to practice.

Hah. Christianity and hypocrisy? Say it ain't so!

They're like peas in a pod, two of a kind, bangers and mash, and so on, and so forth...

The way I see it, Communism from a Christian standpoint is as bad as state-enforced Christianity. The Bible says to give to the poor because you're a good person, NOT because our good buddies Stalin and Marx told us to:headbang:

Hah. Christianity and hypocrisy? Say it ain't so!

They're like peas in a pod, two of a kind, bangers and mash, and so on, and so forth...
Obviously you've had some nasty experiences with Christians. What bugs me is the counter-hypocrisy you are spouting. You seemingly claim to hate Christians because they are hypocrites, and yet by applying such a large stereotype to millions of people you are indulging in a form of hypocrisy yourself. That doesn't seem to jive with me too well.

Obviously you've had some nasty experiences with Christians. What bugs me is the counter-hypocrisy you are spouting. You seemingly claim to hate Christians because they are hypocrites, and yet by applying such a large stereotype to millions of people you are indulging in a form of hypocrisy yourself. That doesn't seem to jive with me too well.
Can you stick to the topic? If you have bones to pick, do so elsewhere.

Obviously you've had some nasty experiences with Christians. What bugs me is the counter-hypocrisy you are spouting. You seemingly claim to hate Christians because they are hypocrites, and yet by applying such a large stereotype to millions of people you are indulging in a form of hypocrisy yourself. That doesn't seem to jive with me too well.
Yes, atheists have a tendency to call us ignorant with one side of their mouth and spew their own ignorant stereotypes at us with the other =/

Recently I have been torn between the idea of my faith and my core ideologies. As it is plainly and painstakingly obvious, I am highly capitalist and I admire individual power and success. Herein lies the problem. Christianity is typically a faith resting on the base premise of charity, collectivist ideals and a general disdain for wealth, something I cannot personally sympathise with.

So, my question then is, is any form of Christianity compatible with its twin pillar, Capitalism? Often I have heard Protestantism is the free-marketeer's brand of Christendom. Is this so? Moreover, is any faith compatible with it, notwithstanding Satanism and perhaps Judaism? I am not open to the notion of becoming faithless; merely seeking to see if I can reconcile my faith with personal beliefs.

Finally, this is a question of the faith's compatibility with Capitalism, not about the relative merits/demerits of it nor those particular to Christianity. So focus the debate on that. Not irrelevant tangents.the Christian faith is about charity, that is Generosity. that does not mean you cannot keep your wealth, it just means to be generous with it. so if you don't believe in charity organizations, then donating to a school, mueseam, or just giving a dollar to a homeless person can count. it's what you do with your wealth and the thoughts and heart behind that doing that counts, not how much you have or how much you give.

the Christian faith is about charity, that is Generosity. that does not mean you cannot keep your wealth, it just means to be generous with it. so if you don't believe in charity organizations, then donating to a school, mueseam, or just giving a dollar to a homeless person can count. it's what you do with your wealth and the thoughts and heart behind that doing that counts, not how much you have or how much you give.
Then what of verses such as those to the effect that it'd be easier for a camel to pass through a pinhead then for a wealthy person to enter the Kingdom of God?

the Christian faith is about charity, that is Generosity. that does not mean you cannot keep your wealth, it just means to be generous with it. so if you don't believe in charity organizations, then donating to a school, mueseam, or just giving a dollar to a homeless person can count. it's what you do with your wealth and the thoughts and heart behind that doing that counts, not how much you have or how much you give.
Thank you. That was the point I was trying to make.

Christians can be rich, but it is still their moral duty to stand up for the little man.

Whatever you do unto the least of these my brothers, you do it unto me.

Obviously you've had some nasty experiences with Christians. What bugs me is the counter-hypocrisy you are spouting. You seemingly claim to hate Christians because they are hypocrites, and yet by applying such a large stereotype to millions of people you are indulging in a form of hypocrisy yourself. That doesn't seem to jive with me too well.

*yawn*

Take your bellyaching, oh, so persecuted self elsewhere, please. I couldn't give a patootie what "jives" with you.

Then what of verses such as those to the effect that it'd be easier for a camel to pass through a pinhead then for a wealthy person to enter the Kingdom of God?
It's talking about the corruption that comes from unshared wealth. Wealth is a good thing if it's used to help people.

But also, the "eye of a needle" thing is actually referring to a type of arch camels had a great deal of difficulty with, not an actual pinhead.

I'm mocking you. Charity is one of the few things I can appreciate in Christianity. It's just too bad a lot of Christians have a view such as your own when it comes to it.
Catholics tend to be pretty good on the ol' charity side of things. Especially the Liberation Theologists, though they're a minority in Europe. :(

I haven't a problem with charity as a concept itself, as in voluntarily giving to those in need. It's simply that the faith seems to condemn the concept of wealth in all its entirety.
It only condemns those who hoard wealth for themselves. Make your choice! Stand up for the faithful and the downtrodden or stand up for the elite!

There are some Christians which will profess to believe in the free market. But they don't understand capitalism, and they don't really want to.

Capitalism on its most basic level is materialistic, individualist and based on rational selfishness and personal judgement.

Christianity (as most other religions) is spiritual, collectivist and based on faith and divine judgement.
Christianity (alright I'm mainly going on statements from prominent Catholics here) also seems to support the labour theory of the value of products rather than the market theory.

And yet churches have managed to be rich like trolls, as we say. The pope certainly doesn't look like he's in need... so, I don't think the faith has something against wealth.
They are getting better though. Sure, St. Peter's is still lined with gold, but JPII gave up the throne and many other excesses.

Perhaps the bare walls of the Puritans are more to your liking?

And for the record, you don't have to believe in state-enforced equality to believe in equality.
That's just naive.

*yawn*

Take your bellyaching, oh, so persecuted self elsewhere, please. I couldn't give a patootie what "jives" with you.
Sorry for being ignorant and acting like I'm being persecuted. I'm so sorry to not share your ideology.

He's entitled to his opinion.

Take your bellyaching, oh, so persecuted self elsewhere, please. I couldn't give a patootie what "jives" with you.
Do you think that the average homophobe gives a shit that they offend you with their rants? Does that make them right?

Catholics tend to be pretty good on the ol' charity side of things.

Hehe.

Oh, you're serious.

They are getting better though. Sure, St. Peter's is still lined with gold, but JPII gave up the throne and many other excesses.

Perhaps the bare walls of the Puritans are more to your liking?

I grew up in a country which historically is a Lutheran nest. So, Catholic opulence and quasi-idolatry are strange. Almost blasphemous. But, that was the reformation...

It only condemns those who hoard wealth for themselves. Make your choice! Stand up for the faithful and the downtrodden or stand up for the elite!

So essentially it does not condemn those who would give to charity?

So essentially it does not condemn those who would give to charity?
Giving to charity helps the poor, does it not?

Giving to charity helps the poor, does it not?
Indeed, although someone mentioned the other day in one of the religious threads that monetary charity is not what the Bible speaks of. :confused:

Here:

Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits. When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it's what comes out of your mouth that will defile you."

Then what of verses such as those to the effect that it'd be easier for a camel to pass through a pinhead then for a wealthy person to enter the Kingdom of God?
because as it was said earlier, wealth tends to be rather tempting in and of itself. People tend to latch on to wealth and find that giving with the expectation to recieve something in return is far easier than to give because someone needs it more than they do. in other words, wealth bring a form of power, and power corrupts.

in time, that wealth becomes their focus and not the charity that they are suppose to be doing as Christians.

when you give a homeless person/begger on the street a couple of dollars, do you ask "when will you be paid back?" do you think "ok God, See me doing good here!" Do you tell that person to mow your lawn first?

All that taints the act of charity and twists it. and that is what is warned against. not being wealthy, but putting that wealth first before God.

So essentially it does not condemn those who would give to charity?
Basically. Again, the least of these my brothers.

Except it's important to give willingly, out of the goodness of your heart, rather than grudgingly because you feel you have to.

Do you think that the average homophobe gives a shit that they offend you with their rants?

They'd be poor homophobes if they did, seeing as I'm not people in their eyes.

Does that make them right?

I'll tell you, too, to take this off-topic discussion elsewhere. This is EM's thread, and this is not what it's about.

Christianity only selectively hates wealth. When they have it, it’s all good, but when the Jews have it, burn them for suspected links to the Mongol Horde.

Oh yeah, that whole thing about Jesus telling that rich guy to give up all his money really pisses me off. It’s easy to tell people to give when you yourself don’t have anything.

Christianity only selectively hates wealth. When they have it, it’s all good, but when the Jews have it, burn them for suspected links to the Mongol Horde.

It is bit funny because it's been historically true. Mostly sad, though. *sigh*

I'll tell you, too, to take this off-topic discussion elsewhere. This is EM's thread, and this is not what it's about.
The analogy was suitable. It's bad form to criticise something, then just brush off defenders of what you're criticising. It doesn't make your argument look strong.

I LOVE YOU.

How very Christian. :)

I have a friend who tells me I can't be a true Christian if I'm not a socialist because Jesus taught equality. Telling somebody they can't be a part of ANY religion because of their political stance is a filthy piece of bullcrap that needs to be met with rabid face-beatings.

Rabid face-beatings, however, are not very Christian.

Hehe.

Oh, you're serious.

Yes I am. Trocaire and numerous other Catholic charities are pretty big here. It makes the US Republichristians I encounter on this forum appear all the more disgusting.

So essentially it does not condemn those who would give to charity?
You've got to give up all your possessions so you don't have any more than everyone else, seems to be the Jesus lifestyle.

The analogy was suitable. It's bad form to criticise something, then just brush off defenders of what you're criticising. It doesn't make your argument look strong.

The analogy wasn't suitable, and I don't really care what you think about the "argument," seeing as it wasn't an argument at all, but it was me having a free discussion with EM, not with you. So, please, do not disturb his thread with your inability to butt out of a leisurely convo between acquaintances, and respect that I'm not going to let this hijack it.

You've got to give up all your possessions so you don't have any more than everyone else, seems to be the Jesus lifestyle.
The Bible demands this level of charity? Or is it what it would expect of the "ideal Christian"?

On a personal level I can relate to the idea of voluntarily giving aid to those who need it (nowhere near to that extent though). On an economic level, I do not feel faith should intervene in any case. My main question is basically whether or not Christianity completely inhibits one from being Capitalist; then being both believer and proponent of the latter would be hypocrisy.

The analogy wasn't suitable, and I don't really care what you think about the "argument," seeing as it wasn't an argument at all, but it was me having a free discussion with EM, not with you. So, please, do not disturb his thread with your inability to butt out of a leisurely convo between acquaintances, and respect that I'm not going to let this hijack it.
I have a right to butt into any conversation in any thread. Use instant messenger if you want a two-way conversation.

There's really no point in you being here if you're going to just make statements that annoy people, and then tell them to go away when they refute. That's called trolling.

And your faith would be? Please drop the little RP act if that is what you have planned. I'm not in the mood to entertain you.
My dear Europa, as sarcastic as I may sound sometimes, I do not joke about serious matters. You've asked about religions that were compatible with accumulation of wealth so that maybe you could reconcile your faith with your interests. Do you want to reconcile your interests with priests or with God? I can point out priests that love wealth...

Have you not heard of how your Jesus threw out merchants and the money-changers from the temple? Has he not told you to not to lend at interest and not do automated charity (as someone else pointed out to you before)? Have you not read Jesus' words in the bible?

Have you not heard his Sermon on the Mount?

Matthew 6:19-21
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Matthew 6:24
No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both God and Mammon (richness/money).

Be a Capitalist - if you wish - but drop Jesus. Or join Jesus - if you wish - but drop Capitalism. These are your choices if you want to be true to yourself. The only other option is to preach Jesus and practice Capitalism and join the hypocrites in Hell. Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh.

The Bible demands this level of charity? Or is it what it would expect of the "ideal Christian"?
Every Christian should try to be an ideal Christian.

On a personal level I can relate to the idea of voluntarily giving aid to those who need it (nowhere near to that extent though). On an economic level, I do not feel faith should intervene in any case.
Then you're a half-hearted, postmodern Christian. Faith should pervade all aspects of life.

I have a right to butt into any conversation in any thread. Use instant messenger if you want a two-way conversation.

There's really no point in you being here if you're going to just make statements that annoy people, and then tell them to go away when they refute. That's called trolling.

Theres really no point in being here if your gonna get all worked up everytime a big homo like Fass says something that might get under your skin. Its an interenet forum....its not like hes sitting on your lap stradling your thighs. Is it?

Christianity only selectively hates wealth. When they have it, it’s all good, but when the Jews have it, burn them for suspected links to the Mongol Horde.
Those are not Christians; they are hypocrites and their place is with me...

Theres really no point in being here if your gonna get all worked up everytime a big homo like Fass says something that might get under your skin. Its an interenet forum....its not like hes sitting on your lap stradling your thighs. Is it?
:rolleyes:

I think it's worth pointing out a troll. Funny how Fass accuses other posters of trolling, when he is trolling right now in this thread.

lets look at those verses... shall we?


Matthew 6:19-21
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

now Lay up is to mean HOARD. to gather and hold, keep and collect.
so yes, that is true, to gather such wealth for the sole purpose of wealth is wrong.
now how to gather up treasues in heaven... by doing Gods work, being generous and giving. again, it's not how much you give, but the heart behind the giving.


Matthew 6:24
"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both God and Mammon (richnesses).
this goes back into placing Wealth over God. the mere fact that you are wealthy isn't a sin. it's what you do or not do with that wealth. One can be rich and serve God.

Those are not Christians; they are hypocrites and their place is with me...
So then, lad, what is your faith?

The only other option is to preach Jesus and practice Capitalism and join the hypocrites in Hell.

Recruiting, are we? ;)

Then you're a half-hearted, postmodern Christian. Faith should pervade all aspects of life.
There is not enough evidence of God's existence to tell me I should force my beliefs upon others. It is a highly personal matter.

And yet churches have managed to be rich like trolls, as we say. The pope certainly doesn't look like he's in need... so, I don't think the faith has something against wealth. It just has something against hoarding that wealth and "not giving back to the community" à la "I'm still Jenny from the block, used to have a little, now I have a lot, no matter where I go I know where I came from"-J.Lo.

Sorry, that song was just on the radio. It fit.

Thus, why Luther decided to say no to Catholicism and their greed. Thankfully, now, we have protestantism.

Recruiting, are we? ;)
I do not lack recruits, believe me... :D

So then, lad, what is your faith?
Who created Satan, my dear, if not God Himself? I'm a rebel with plenty of cause...

My faith are the 7 sins, which you know too well...

Who created Satan, my dear, if not God Himself? I'm a rebel with plenty of cause...

My faith are the 7 sins, which you know too well...
A Satanist in LeVay's footsteps then?

And yet churches have managed to be rich like trolls, as we say. The pope certainly doesn't look like he's in need... so, I don't think the faith has something against wealth.
What makes you assume the pope will spend his eternity with God? Is he not the Idol Shepherd?

A Satanist in LeVay's footsteps then?
Satanists, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists... I've got a good share of all, to feed the fires of Hell...

:rolleyes:

I think it's worth pointing out a troll. Funny how Fass accuses other posters of trolling, when he is trolling right now in this thread.

No one cares, really. Fass does it with style, it's sort of his thing.

Satanists, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists... I've got a good share of all, to feed the fires of Hell...
Right...umm, why not create your very own thread to do just that? :)

PS: As a sidenote, I'd like any real Satanists to express their position on the OP. Jews too.

Satanists, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists... I've got a good share of all, to feed the fires of Hell...

You running out of fuel or something, mate? I wasn't aware that the fires of hell needed to be fed.

Christianity and Capitalism are not opposed. There are many instances in the Bible where God promises prosperity to those who worship and obey him. Many people who are opposed to Christianity, Capitalism, both/either, or Western Civilization (sometimes known as college professors) try to conflict Christianity and Capitalism.

Also, money is not the root of all evil, the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. God doesn't hate money, nor does he need money. He would prefer that you not be stingy, but as long as you love God more than anything else, you should have no problems.

I manage to simultaneously belong to one of the most externally opulent of all Christian churches (Russian Orthodox) while believing that Christianity is a fundamentally left-wing belief system.

So I'll attempt to answer Europa Maxima's original question from the perspective of my own personal Orwellian double-think.

The parable of the talents aside (and I'm stunned that no one has yet offered that standard 'prosperity gospel' defence of capitalism), the New Testament is usually fairly sceptical towards wealth and the wealthy.

There's the famous 'it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven' (and whether the needle is taken literally or figuratively, it's clearly not supposed to be easy). We also have Christ's admonition to the rich man to give up his belongings, Luke's version of the Sermon on the Mount ('blessed are the poor', rather than Matthew's extended 'blessed are the poor in spirit') - and in fact the whole Sermon on the Mount in general (note that Beatitude absolutists like the Catholic St Francis of Assisi are not typically known for their defence of wealth). And it sometimes seems as if most of Acts is a proto-Socialist tract on the benefits of communal living - "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" (no, I'm not claiming Marx was quoting from Scripture, merely noting that there's something of a shared theme).

This message has tended to be obscured in the latter half of the 20th-century for two primary reasons:

1) 20th-century 'scientific socialism' has usually taken a stance of inherent hostility towards religion (of any kind), often going so far as ideologically regarding faith and belief to be unscientific supersition to be stamped out. Those areas where there was common ground - particularly as regards the role of the poor - have been ignored for those areas of mutual incompatibility.

2) The embracing of the deeply heretical 'prosperity gospel' ideology by politically-active American evangelicals has tended to make many non-Christian observers inside and outside the USA believe that all Christians share this warping of the gospels.

However, having said all of that, in order to make the apparently Catholic Europa Maxima feel better about this whole capitalism thing, I offer up the words of the Catholic theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in a direct counter to my own argument:
"In regard to an external thing man has two powers: one is the power of managing and controlling it, and as to this it is lawful for a man to possess private property. It is, moreover, necessary for human life for three reasons. First, because everyone is more zealous in looking after a thing that belongs to him than a thing that is the common property of all or of many; because each person, trying to escape labour, leaves to another what is everybody's business, as happens where there are many servants. Secondly, because there is more order in the management of men's affairs if each has his own work of looking after definite things; whereas there would be confusion if everyone managed everything indiscriminately. Thirdly, because in this way the relations of men are kept more peaceful, since everyone is satisfied with his own possession, whence we see that quarrels are commoner between those who jointly own a thing as a whole. The other power which man has over external things is the using of them;; and as to this man must not hold external things as his own property, but as everyone's; so as to make no difficulty, I mean, in sharing when others are in need" (Summa theologica, II-II, Q. Ixvi, a. 2).

What makes you assume the pope will spend his eternity with God?

I don't assume anyone is going to spend eternity with any deity, since I don't believe in them. I was just using the pope as an example of someone who leads a very wealthy church. Believe me, I would have nothing against seeing him burn, but that's as silly a thought as heaven.

Is he not the Idol Shepherd?

You're seriously asking the wrong person. I'm also biased, as in comparison to the in my country dominating Christian sect of Lutheranism, Catholicism seems riddled with idolatry, so I'm not gonna be able to make any sort of pertinent comment to that.

Right...umm, why not create your very own thread to do just that? :)

PS: As a sidenote, I'd like any real Satanists to express their position on the OP. Jews too.

Well, since you asked.

" Judaism as a religious vision emphasizes the integrity, freedom, and independence of the individual, as well as his or her responsibilities to society. Individual property rights were therefore as important to the Hebrew Bible as they later were to John Locke."

"A world of limited government and respect for private property, in which individuals are self-supporting through their own labor, is a world of maximal freedom and human dignity. Judaism's strong provisions for tzedakah (a word meaning both charity and righteousness) are designed not only to alleviate poverty but also, and primarily, to restore independence. Hence, in Jewish law, the highest form of charity is to find someone a job so that he or she no longer needs to depend on charity." (a bit more effective than welfare :p )


Linky-doodle-dandy (http://www.acton.org/publicat/randl/interview.php?id=401)

*snip*
Awesome. Thanks for the link. :)

I don't think support for behavior according to a strict interpretation of what Jesus says is compatible with support for capitalism, or at least participation in it. His condemnations of usury are easily applicable to all sorts of capital gains, and his rejection of property is pretty clear-cut ("sell all you have and give it to the poor.") Then again, I don't think such support is compatible with logic, either.

Judaism may work a little better; the Old Testament has lots of condemnations of economic inequality, but it's milder, at least on the individual level. Though it does also include a number of provisions for social welfare, the redistribution of wealth, and tithing to support an unproductive class, none of which is particularly close to libertarian capitalism.

Right-libertarianism has always seemed to me to be the natural antithesis of serious organized religion (if the label "serious" can be applied to organized religion at all). Making the two coherently compatible is certainly possible - there are enough ambiguous verses and enough excuses one can invent - but like trying to reconcile it with revolutionary libertarian socialism, eventually one would probably realize that he is forcing it.

Then again, I'm a left-wing heretic who abandoned organized religion when I recognized its incompatibility with my emphasis on human freedom, so you may wish to interpret what I say in that light.

You're seriously asking the wrong person. I'm also biased, as in comparison to the in my country dominating Christian sect of Lutheranism, Catholicism seems riddled with idolatry, so I'm not gonna be able to make any sort of pertinent comment to that.
Biased? You are not... Read the bible Fass but search for the words of Jesus, not those of the apostles...

Or read this... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11041280&postcount=3624)

" Judaism as a religious vision emphasizes the integrity, freedom, and independence of the individual, as well as his or her responsibilities to society. Individual property rights were therefore as important to the Hebrew Bible as they later were to John Locke."

Hence, one was required to give up one's "individual property" in land every fifty years, and have it be redistributed according to the original distribution. Well, actually, that probably never happened, but the Bible says it should.

Not to mention the portion of the crop one was required to leave for the poor (more "individual property" you are compelled to relinquish) and the ban on growing crops every seven years.

"A world of limited government and respect for private property, in which individuals are self-supporting through their own labor, is a world of maximal freedom and human dignity. Judaism's strong provisions for tzedakah (a word meaning both charity and righteousness) are designed not only to alleviate poverty but also, and primarily, to restore independence. Hence, in Jewish law, the highest form of charity is to find someone a job so that he or she no longer needs to depend on charity." (a bit more effective than welfare :p )

And here I was thinking full employment was a socialist objective. Shouldn't people be forced to find jobs for themselves according to the right-libertarian ideology, not helped by a generous state wishing to fulfill Maimonides' highest category of charity?

Linky-doodle-dandy (http://www.acton.org/publicat/randl/interview.php?id=401)

Skimmed over the rest; nothing to add to my other points except that the verse he cites in Micah is a perfect justification for the redistribution of wealth (Jim Wallis does exactly that in God's Politics).

Awesome. Thanks for the link. :)
Got some more for ya...

http://www.jewfaq.org/tzedakah.htm
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/daily_life/Tzedakah/TO_Tzedakah_Th_and_Th/Why_Need_for_Tzedakah.htm
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/daily_life/Tzedakah/TO_Tzedakah_H_and_D/Tzedakah_in_Bible.htm

Biased? You are not... Read the bible Fass but search for the words of Jesus, not those of the apostles...

No, I'm quite happy wasting my time posting here, instead of wasting it reading the Bible.

Or read this... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11041280&postcount=3624)

The red font is just a bit over the top.

Hence, one was required to give up one's "individual property" in land every fifty years, and have it be redistributed according to the original distribution. Well, actually, that probably never happened, but the Bible says it should.

Not to mention the portion of the crop one was required to leave for the poor (more "individual property" you are compelled to relinquish) and the ban on growing crops every seven years.



And here I was thinking full employment was a socialist objective. Shouldn't people be forced to find jobs for themselves according to the right-libertarian ideology, not helped by a generous state wishing to fulfill Maimonide's highest category of charity?



Skimmed over the rest; nothing to add to my other points except that the verse he cites in Micah is a perfect justification for the redistribution of wealth (Jim Wallis does exactly that in God's Politics).

As Neu Leonstein pointed out to me...interestingly enough, that stuff can be argued for Capitalism, or Communism. :D Gotta love the Bible.

Also, the whole full employment thing isnt socialist...its getting the most people off welfare and helping out the economy.

I don't think support for behavior according to a strict interpretation of what Jesus says is compatible with support for capitalism, or at least participation in it. His condemnations of usury are easily applicable to all sorts of capital gains, and his rejection of property is pretty clear-cut ("sell all you have and give it to the poor.")

Though you are a self-professed 'left-wing heretic', I think you'd find that this particular Russian Orthodox Christian would broadly agree with what you've written there.

But I also confess to base hypocrisy since I don't belong to an Orthodox Christian commune, nor do I have any plans to give up my possessions to the poor and retire to a life of contemplation.

However, in the wholly hypothetical and not to be wished for scenario of my wife pre-deceasing me (which is particularly unlikely given that I have leukaemia), entering a monastery would be extremely attractive. At which point I would hopefully no longer be hypocrite as I'd have taken care of both of the objections in that previous short paragraph.

I don't think support for behavior according to a strict interpretation of what Jesus says is compatible with support for capitalism, or at least participation in it. His condemnations of usury are easily applicable to all sorts of capital gains, and his rejection of property is pretty clear-cut ("sell all you have and give it to the poor.") Then again, I don't think such support is compatible with logic, either.
Exactly. I too find it slightly out of touch with the real world. It definitely contravenes my own personal beliefs.

Right-libertarianism has always seemed to me to be the natural antithesis of serious organized religion (if the label "serious" can be applied to organized religion at all). Making the two coherently compatible is certainly possible - there are enough ambiguous verses and enough excuses one can invent - but like trying to reconcile it with revolutionary libertarian socialism, eventually one would probably realize that he is forcing it.
I suppose it depends on how literally you take the Bible, and how far you are willing to go. One who is too literal would find that they would be compelled to reject homosexuality and so forth. So, whilst it may have a seemingly left-wing economic bias, its social alignment is in direct contravention. I find this ironic; those who would interpret the Bible liberally for economic purposes, would usually support its strict views on societal organisation. On the other hand, those who would interpret it literally to extract left-wing economic ideologies would be confronted with social ideologies most probably repugnant to them.

Then again, I'm a left-wing heretic who abandoned organized religion when I recognized its incompatibility with my emphasis on human freedom, so you may wish to interpret what I say in that light.
I appreciate your insights, useful as they always are. :)

I manage to simultaneously belong to one of the most externally opulent of all Christian churches (Russian Orthodox) while believing that Christianity is a fundamentally left-wing belief system.

So I'll attempt to answer Europa Maxima's original question from the perspective of my own personal Orwellian double-think.

The parable of the talents aside (and I'm stunned that no one has yet offered that standard 'prosperity gospel' defence of capitalism), the New Testament is usually fairly sceptical towards wealth and the wealthy.

There's the famous 'it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven' (and whether the needle is taken literally or figuratively, it's clearly not supposed to be easy). We also have Christ's admonition to the rich man to give up his belongings, Luke's version of the Sermon on the Mount ('blessed are the poor', rather than Matthew's extended 'blessed are the poor in spirit') - and in fact the whole Sermon on the Mount in general (note that Beatitude absolutists like the Catholic St Francis of Assisi are not typically known for their defence of wealth). And it sometimes seems as if most of Acts is a proto-Socialist tract on the benefits of communal living - "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" (no, I'm not claiming Marx was quoting from Scripture, merely noting that there's something of a shared theme).

This message has tended to be obscured in the latter half of the 20th-century for two primary reasons:

1) 20th-century 'scientific socialism' has usually taken a stance of inherent hostility towards religion (of any kind), often going so far as ideologically regarding faith and belief to be unscientific supersition to be stamped out. Those areas where there was common ground - particularly as regards the role of the poor - have been ignored for those areas of mutual incompatibility.

2) The embracing of the deeply heretical 'prosperity gospel' ideology by politically-active American evangelicals has tended to make many non-Christian observers inside and outside the USA believe that all Christians share this warping of the gospels.

However, having said all of that, in order to make the apparently Catholic Europa Maxima feel better about this whole capitalism thing, I offer up the words of the Catholic theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in a direct counter to my own argument:
"In regard to an external thing man has two powers: one is the power of managing and controlling it, and as to this it is lawful for a man to possess private property. It is, moreover, necessary for human life for three reasons. First, because everyone is more zealous in looking after a thing that belongs to him than a thing that is the common property of all or of many; because each person, trying to escape labour, leaves to another what is everybody's business, as happens where there are many servants. Secondly, because there is more order in the management of men's affairs if each has his own work of looking after definite things; whereas there would be confusion if everyone managed everything indiscriminately. Thirdly, because in this way the relations of men are kept more peaceful, since everyone is satisfied with his own possession, whence we see that quarrels are commoner between those who jointly own a thing as a whole. The other power which man has over external things is the using of them;; and as to this man must not hold external things as his own property, but as everyone's; so as to make no difficulty, I mean, in sharing when others are in need" (Summa theologica, II-II, Q. Ixvi, a. 2).
You spoke a lot and said very little... I have not heard one word from Jesus in your long explanation... Do you not recognise him as your teacher? If so, why do you listen to the students instead?

Especially the Liberation Theologists, though they're a minority in Europe. :(

Liberation Theology is not about charity. That is why Pope Benedict XVI and the other members of the Catholic leadership despise it. It is about justice - about remaking society in a manner that reflects the human dignity of every human being, instead of leaving it in the hands of a super-rich elite that exploits everyone else.

Charity tends to involve temporary, insufficient solutions to society's real problems, giving an excuse to said super-rich elite to glorify themselves as "generous" without actually solving much of anything. There are definitely exceptions, and it is far superior to nothing, but ultimately the creation of a just society without the inequities that necessitate charity is the superior objective. The problem with a good deal of organized religion's emphasis on charity, to me, is that it fails to appreciate this greater goal.

You spoke a lot and said very little... I have not heard one word from Jesus in your long explanation... Do you not recognise him as your teacher? If so, why do you listen to the students instead?

Funny, I could swear there's a specific mention of 'Christ' in the third line of the fourth paragraph.

I must have imagined writing 'We also have Christ's admonition to the rich man to give up his belongings'. Strange what age does to you.

You running out of fuel or something, mate? I wasn't aware that the fires of hell needed to be fed.
No problems with fuel, just with the bloody ice machines... :D

Recently I have been torn between the idea of my faith and my core ideologies. As it is plainly and painstakingly obvious, I am highly capitalist and I admire individual power and success. Herein lies the problem. Christianity is typically a faith resting on the base premise of charity, collectivist ideals and a general disdain for wealth, something I cannot personally sympathise with.

So, my question then is, is any form of Christianity compatible with its twin pillar, Capitalism? Often I have heard Protestantism is the free-marketeer's brand of Christendom. Is this so? Moreover, is any faith compatible with it, notwithstanding Satanism and perhaps Judaism? I am not open to the notion of becoming faithless; merely seeking to see if I can reconcile my faith with personal beliefs.

Finally, this is a question of the faith's compatibility with Capitalism, not about the relative merits/demerits of it nor those particular to Christianity. So focus the debate on that. Not irrelevant tangents.

Christianity does not promote the taking of wealth through others coercively, but rather generosity to improve oneself as well. Although Jesus did reject one man who was wealthy (because he gained it through ill methods), he had plenty of rich friends, such as the donor of his tomb, who he did not reject based on their material wealth. It is not the wealth that Christianity rejects, but how you gain it and how you use it. The gain is consistent with the libertarian SOP, or self-ownership and the respect of the self-ownership of others. The latter is an embodiment of rational self-interest. It is understood that wealth is not the be all and end all of human life. This is the same with Maslowe's hierarchy of needs, and rational self-interest- one does things because he sees them as being worthwhile endeavour and use of his time and resources. Christianity would not neccessarily object to this, and would state that it is a worthwhile use of time to give of oneself to charity.

Just for the record, I am a Roman Catholic, and comfortable with my extreme capitalism, which borders on anarcho-capitalism.

Funny, I could swear there's a specific mention of 'Christ' in the third line of the fourth paragraph.

I must have imagined writing 'We also have Christ's admonition to the rich man to give up his belongings'. Strange what age does to you.
So you're offending me now? Good... I like that. Maybe you should read my comment again: "I have not heard one word from Jesus..."

Christianity does not promote the taking of wealth through others coercively, but rather generosity to improve oneself as well. Although Jesus did reject one man who was wealthy (because he gained it through ill methods), he had plenty of rich friends, such as the donor of his tomb, who he did not reject based on their material wealth. It is not the wealth that Christianity rejects, but how you gain it and how you use it. The gain is consistent with the libertarian SOP, or self-ownership and the respect of the self-ownership of others. The latter is an embodiment of rational self-interest. It is understood that wealth is not the be all and end all of human life. This is the same with Maslowe's hierarchy of needs, and rational self-interest- one does things because he sees them as being worthwhile endeavour and use of his time and resources. Christianity would not neccessarily object to this, and would state that it is a worthwhile use of time to give of oneself to charity.

Just for the record, I am a Roman Catholic, and comfortable with my extreme capitalism, which borders on anarcho-capitalism.
Funny how none of you can quote your Teacher, to support your beliefs... Let me do it for you instead:

Jesus said "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits. When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it's what comes out of your mouth that will defile you."

I have not heard one word from Jesus in your long explanation...[QUOTE]

The "camel through the eye of a needle" verse is Jesus's, at least according to the Gospels.

[quote=Europa Maxima]I suppose it depends on how literally you take the Bible, and how far you are willing to go. One who is too literal would find that they would be compelled to reject homosexuality and so forth. So, whilst it may have a seemingly left-wing economic bias, its social alignment is in direct contravention. I find this ironic; those who would interpret the Bible liberally for economic purposes, would usually support its strict views on societal organisation. On the other hand, those who would interpret it literally to extract left-wing economic ideologies would be confronted with social ideologies most probably repugnant to them.

I don't think the Bible is necessarily "left-wing" in its economic ideology, I just touched on this issue in my post preceding this one. It's "anti-selfishness," yes, but left-wing economic ideology involves a good deal more than that. Its conception of social hierarchy is most definitely not left-wing, as is its insistence that what happens is the result of one's good or bad deeds, or God's will, and not societal oppression.

What you say, though, is broadly true. There are ways to get around the conservative social teachings, too, but you usually either end up with a patronizing "hate the sin, love the sinner" sort of thing, a contemptuous tolerance that would be unacceptable to me, or an explanation that rests on a large number of questionable assumptions (though simple faith can get around that, it did for me for a long time.)

I appreciate your insights, useful as they always are.

Thank you.

Though you are a self-professed 'left-wing heretic',

Reluctantly, sometimes. Someone really clever may be able to cure me.

I think you'd find that this particular Russian Orthodox Christian would broadly agree with what you've written there.

I know a few Catholics who would, too. I'm not as hostile to religion as many of those close to me politically are, because of my own experiences and my strong sympathy with Liberation Theology and similar movements.

But I also confess to base hypocrisy since I don't belong to an Orthodox Christian commune, nor do I have any plans to give up my possessions to the poor and retire to a life of contemplation.

We are all guilty. But I do not advocate retiring to a life of contemplation, that is another disagreement, perhaps, between Jesus and I. Hedonism restrained by altruism is my ideology, more or less.

Funny, I could swear there's a specific mention of 'Christ' in the third line of the fourth paragraph.

I must have imagined writing 'We also have Christ's admonition to the rich man to give up his belongings'. Strange what age does to you.

So you're offending me now? Good... I like that. Maybe you should read my comment again: "I have not heard one word from Jesus..."

Offending you? How can a passing reference to my own age and the fact that I'm older than most NS posters possibly offend Satan? One would have thought the Prince of Lies had weightier matters to worry about.

And I repeat that there were several references to Christ's direct teachings in my post. Would it have made you feel better if I'd written "As Jesus said, 'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God' " Perhaps not, since I imagine that you'd then argue that I was quoting a secondary source (Matthew 19:24, to be precise). And if that's indeed the case, well, we have very little to say to each other since I doubt very much I could convince you otherwise. Regrettably, I'll be forced to fire up the metaphorical ignore cannon and concentrate on the posts from people more interested in addressing Europa Maxima's original point.

I don't think the Bible is necessarily "left-wing" in its economic ideology, I just touched on this issue in my post preceding this one. It's "anti-selfishness," yes, but left-wing economic ideology involves a good deal more than that. Its conception of social hierarchy is most definitely not left-wing, as is its insistence that what happens is the result of one's good or bad deeds, or God's will, and not societal oppression.
That is how I view it too; more of an economic conscience than a strictly left-wing ideology. Like you said though, if one is so inclined, most anything can be construed from the Bible's ambiguous verses.

What you say, though, is broadly true. There are ways to get around the conservative social teachings, too, but you usually either end up with a patronizing "hate the sin, love the sinner" sort of thing, a contemptuous tolerance that would be unacceptable to me, or an explanation that rests on a large number of questionable assumptions (though simple faith can get around that, it did for me for a long time.)
Indeed. I tend to go with the last bit, essentially questioning much of what is in the Bible, based on the fact that it is a human work (even if perhaps divinely inspired), and thus not immune to human influences permeating it.

*snip*
Thank you for your views. I can see what you are saying. It makes me feel a little bit better about the potential compatibility of the ideology and of the faith.

Offending you? How can a passing reference to my own age and the fact that I'm older than most NS posters possibly offend Satan? One would have thought the Prince of Lies had weightier matters to worry about.
Please, don't offend me with your contempt, when I am presenting a perfectly reasonable argument based solely on the words of your Teacher.

And I repeat that there were several references to Christ's direct teachings in my post. Would it have made you feel better if I'd written "As Jesus said, 'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God' " Perhaps not, since I imagine that you'd then argue that I was quoting a secondary source (Matthew 19:24, to be precise).
Let me see if I can make myself clear Archregimancy as I'm obviously failing to be understood (maybe because I'm not a native speaker). We don't want to get angry at each other without necessity:

I have not heard one word from your Teacher supporting accumulation of wealth.

Thank you for your views. I can see what you are saying. It makes me feel a little bit better about the potential compatibility of the ideology and of the faith.
So you prefer to listen to The Archregimancy, Soheran, Greill or myself instead of listening to Jesus? Can't you see the hypocrisy in your words EM?

So you prefer to listen to The Archregimancy, Soheran, Greill or even me instead of listening to Jesus? Can't you see the hypocrisy in your words EM?
Yet they have said nothing which comes in direct contravention with His words.

Now, begone with thee.

I have not heard one word from your Teacher supporting accumulation of wealth.

Well, good then. On that much we're in agreement. An Orthodox agreeing with Satan - who'd have thought it. If you re-read my last long post, I was arguing that Christianity was a fundamentally left-wing ideology, implied it had a lot in common with socialism and shortly after that publicly announced that I was a hypocrite for not joining a commune and giving away my possessions.

I would very much agree that my Teacher, as you put it, spoke often on the need to give up wealth and possessions, and infrequently - if ever - on the benefits of accumulating wealth.

Now, the fundamental point here is whether pro-capitalist Catholics like Europa Maxima can reconcile their pro-market beliefs with the teachings of the Gospels.

There is in fact a long 'double standard' tradition in this regard in Catholicism, originally developed by St. Augustine of Hippo and then refined by St. Thomas Aquinas. There is a division in Catholicism between 'general precepts' and 'specific counsels'. Obedience to the former is essential for salvation, but obedience to the latter is only necessary for perfection. Most people need only concern themselves with the precepts; the counsels apply only to clergy and monks. Put at it's bluntest, this translates to 'try to do what you can, but if you can't do it all, do what you're able to do'.

Cynics might say that this can manipulated in defence of almost any behaviour, but there would be worse ways of applying it than, in Soheran's words:
Hedonism restrained by altruism

I'd personally take a different path, but that seems a reasonably realistic approach for most people.

Yet they have said nothing which comes in direct contravention with His words.

Now, begone with thee.
I am a Roman Catholic, and comfortable with my extreme capitalism, which borders on anarcho-capitalism.
Capitalism = accumulation of wealth = Mammon

Matthew 6:24
"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both God and Mammon (richnesses).

It's up to you EM to look or to open your eyes and see. Unfortunately, I cannot do it for you, as hard as I try:

Jesus said, "If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole."

I'd personally take a different path, but that seems a reasonably realistic approach for most people.

It's the "altruism" part that matters to me. For everything else, the Wiccan Rede comes to mind - "An it harm none, do what ye will."

And if God doesn't like that, well, God has the right not to like it, and I have the right to ignore Him.

Capitalism = accumulation of wealth = Mammon
So long as that accumulation is not one's key focus in life, it is hardly sinful, or wrong.

It's up to you EM to look or to open your eyes and see. Unfortunately, I cannot do it for you, as hard as I try:
I find it slightly funny that one who professes to be Satan and even goes so far as to quote Hitler would take it upon themselves to tell me what I should or should not believe regarding Jesus, by paraphrasing Him even. Hmm...you are disingenuine, I fear.

Capitalism = accumulation of wealth = Mammon

Funny. I'm a capitalist and not particularly interested in accumulating wealth. In fact, my chosen career path will see to it that I don't. And even if by some chance I did become wealthy, I would just give most of my money to charities I support.

Unfortunately, I cannot do it for you, as hard as I try.

You're trying a bit too hard as it is.

Well, good then. On that much we're in agreement. An Orthodox agreeing with Satan - who'd have thought it.
There is a first time for everything in life. :D You know I am Satan as much as anyone else in this forum... (just don't go spreading the word please - as I have a bad reputation to keep)

If you re-read my last long post...
I shall do it again... back in a sec...

So long as that accumulation is not one's key focus in life, it is hardly sinful, or wrong.
Listen to Jesus, not me...

I find it slightly funny that one who professes to be Satan and even goes so far as to quote Hitler would take it upon themselves to tell me what I should or should not believe regarding Jesus, by paraphrasing Him even. Hmm...you are disingenuine, I fear.
Maybe you should take a closer look at Hitler's quote. I wouldn't quote such a monster for no reason...

Thank you for your views. I can see what you are saying. It makes me feel a little bit better about the potential compatibility of the ideology and of the faith.

Hey, no problem bud. Just trying to help out. ;)

Listen to Jesus, not me...
And right now Jesus is saying, ignore the loud little Satan wanna-be.

Funny. I'm a capitalist and not particularly interested in accumulating wealth. In fact, my chosen career path will see to it that I don't. And even if by some chance I did become wealthy, I would just give most of my money to charities I support.
If you end up giving most of your money to charity then you are not accumulating wealth, so I don't think you can call yourself a true Capitalist. At best, you use Capitalism to donate to charity. At worse, you forget who pays the heavier price of Capitalism: the poor. I won't judge you because it is not my place...

You're trying a bit too hard as it is.
If the words of Jesus are too much for you, then maybe you should question your own faith. All the arguments I've presented are his, not mine.

Now, begone with thee.
I've done nothing but to offer you brotherly advice, through the direct words of Jesus, yet this is how you treat me DM?

And right now Jesus is saying, ignore the loud little Satan wanna-be.
So blaspheming is your way out?

Hey, no problem bud. Just trying to help out. ;)
And what am I doing?... :(

So blaspheming is your way out?
Nah, I don't think I'm blaspheming.

Anyways, I'm off to bed. I'll check on this thread tomorrow evening.

His disciples said to him, "Who are you to say these things to us?"

"You don't understand who I am from what I say to you.

Rather, you have become like the Judeans, for they love the tree but hate its fruit, or they love the fruit but hate the tree."

Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven."

Jesus said, "Grapes are not harvested from thorn trees, nor are figs gathered from thistles, for they yield no fruit.

Good persons produce good from what they've stored up; bad persons produce evil from the wickedness they've stored up in their hearts, and say evil things. For from the overflow of the heart they produce evil."

Good persons produce good from what they've stored up

Funny, this seems to imply that money and currency are effective and acceptable means to the ends of God's work within the world.

Funny, this seems to imply that money and currency are effective and acceptable means to the ends of God's work within the world.
Not if it comes at the cost of the poor... but that's me "speculating"

Anyway, I've said and heard too much already for one night...
Good night all and thank you to those who cared to listen to my ranting...

Not if it comes at the cost of the poor...

Thanks for clarifying on your interpretation. Based on the general preachings of Christianity, you might be correct.

This depends on if 'the cost of the poor' is coercive, or in fact, voluntary. Obviously a fruit comes at the cost of the poor in some way or another, but ultimately the exchange benefits the poor.

It also leaves the question as to whether Capitalism is exploitive of the poor, or people are exploitive of the poor.

Funny, you just interjected your own opinion into my statement of what the verse implied.

The verse does not in fact imply that.
look at my edit :D

Thanks for clarifying on your interpretation. Based on the general preachings of Christianity, you might be correct.

This depends on if 'the cost of the poor' is coercive, or in fact, voluntary. Obviously a fruit comes at the cost of the poor in some way or another, but ultimately the exchange benefits the poor.

It also leaves the question as to whether Capitalism is exploitive of the poor, or people are exploitive of the poor.
It's 6:00 AM here... and I have to work tomorrow (today)... :headbang: :D So this is really my last comment...

I think it's obvious people are exploitive of the poor (same argument about guns killing people or people killing people). Question is, can you shoot someone with a gun, without hurting them? Only if they have a bullet proof vest, I suppose...

Is Capitalism eroding the poor's access to Education? Yes.
Is Capitalism eroding the poor's access to Healthcare? Yes.
Is Capitalism eroding the poor's access to Pensions? Yes.
Is Capitalism eroding the poor's access to Housing? Yes.
Is Capitalism increasing the gap between the poor and the rich? Yes.
Is Capitalism causing child labour abroad? Yes.
Is Capitalism causing serious environmental problems? Yes.

Can you continue using Capitalism, without adding to the poor's misery?
All current evidence points to round No.

So, unless we can find a very good bullet proof vest for all the poor (and I cannot imagine "charity" alone ever doing the trick) I find it very hard to accept that Capitalism can - ultimately - not come at the cost of the poor.

Well, I am off to sleep. Remember, this is not a debate so much about Capitalism itself as it is about the ability to reconcile it with Christendom, so focus on that. Bonne nuit et a bientot.

There is no better system than capitalism to bring good economic well being to the most people. I am a capitalist and I also believe in giving charity to the poor. I cannot think of a better system that would help more people. Socialism has been proven to be bad for the economy and anarchy is laughable. I think that people should be free to prosper and be good enough to give to others also. It isnt that bipolar is it?

You've got that wrong. The majority of the patients (in Canada) just happens to be part of the lower class and they abuse the health care system. Yes, I know there are unfortunate people with chronic diseases who don't have the money for alternative medicine, however we Albertans have a free health care system which lets people see their doctor for a mere cold. Doctor's can't do anything about a cold! These people without common sense abuse the health care system.

@ Satan
My family worked hard since teenagers when they immigrated to Canada, unlike the able people on social welfare, scamming the gov't of money. From all the hard work from my father and mother, we are now an average tax payer, which did not come from luckiness. They still come home every night at 3 am and working their way to slightly earlier retirement. This is because of capitalism, the hard working gets rewarded, and the lazy people who go to work at 8:00 AM and come home at 5:00 AM are merely average. If we were a communist country where all the classes were treated equal, then we would be living in poverty despite our immense contribution to our society.

Anyway back to the health care system. Capitalism in health care is inevitable. Up here we have a free health care system, and naturally doctors and hospitals are under funded, thus causing long waiting lists. This guy happened to have a lot of money and flew down south to get a faster treatment. Because of the capitalism invovled in health care, he's alive. Thank you American capitalism.

There is no better system than capitalism to bring good economic well being to the most people. I am a capitalist and I also believe in giving charity to the poor. I cannot think of a better system that would help more people. Socialism has been proven to be bad for the economy and anarchy is laughable. I think that people should be free to prosper and be good enough to give to others also. It isnt that bipolar is it?
Right, before I go, just remember, this is not a battle of economic systems topic.

Christianity bases on fundamental laws of the society, I don't see why discussing about capitalism is off topic.

It seems to me that a strict interpretation of the Hindu caste system would be compatible with capitalism, or a vague interpretation of Christianity.

I believe strongly that capitalism is the economic system that throughout time has helped the most people to earn a living off of their labors. Christianity and capitalism do not conflict and can serve each other. capitalism is only truely good when people find it in their heart to help each other. Christianity only prospers if it has some kind of business sense.

Apparently they believe in predetermination, which I find absurd.

Actually makes perfect sense if you think about it. God is outside time, he created the universe, and as he is all powerful he could have changed what he did to have a different outcome (which he knew due to being all knowing and outside time). Therefroe the world is as it is meant to be...

Of course that problem goes away if you dont believe in a God.

Still a bunch of nasty gits. On some of the Scottish Western Isles they do nasty things like tying up swings on Sunday, and tried once to try and prevent a plane leaving on Sunday even though it was taking a sick person to hospital on the mainland.

Oh, and they believe in a literal intepretation of the Bible as far as I know.

Calvanists: Scotland's religious extremists.

Oh... and generally I would say Christianity at its core is anti-capitalist... didn't stop it changing to adapt to accept it though, just like it changed to accept the feudal system etc.

Many of the first socialists where actually Christians, and in the 19th century Christian socialism was quite an important brand of socialism for quite some time, and you still get things like liberation theology in South America.

I think this is, rather than a question of the nitty-gritty details, actually a question as to what you think Christianity is and your reasons for wanting to be a part of it.

For those people who think Christianity permits Capitalism, Why, I ask, do you name yourself Christian?

Is it because you want to do God's work on earth? Is it because you want to give support to the ideas of Jesus in both a practical and theoretical sense? Both Jesus's actions and the core of his message do not care for the Capitalist system; to them, bringing emotional aid and one's own abilities to help those who have been tossed aside by the world is more important than acquiring one's own material wealth. Ultimately, then, any sort of appeasement of a capitalistic world view by someone who wants to support Jesus's example is due to weakness on one's own part in carrying it out rather than due to any sort of ideological justification.

If not, what else? Is it that you just want a religious community to be a part of? Is it that you want some personal guidance for how to lead your life? Well, then, what's wrong with any other such group? Why should yours be any better than any other?

Beyond that, it's hard to see any other reason to do so that is not inherently a selfish one, in which case, by all means, capitalise away. If you can think of any non-selfish reason that is not either of the above then bring it up, but it essentially seems like the OP, in particular, is looking for a club to be a part of for his own self-interests rather than a sense of spirituality to explore and be amazed by.

Recently I have been torn between the idea of my faith and my core ideologies. As it is plainly and painstakingly obvious, I am highly capitalist and I admire individual power and success. Herein lies the problem. Christianity is typically a faith resting on the base premise of charity, collectivist ideals and a general disdain for wealth, something I cannot personally sympathise with.

So, my question then is, is any form of Christianity compatible with its twin pillar, Capitalism? Often I have heard Protestantism is the free-marketeer's brand of Christendom. Is this so? Moreover, is any faith compatible with it, notwithstanding Satanism and perhaps Judaism? I am not open to the notion of becoming faithless; merely seeking to see if I can reconcile my faith with personal beliefs.

Finally, this is a question of the faith's compatibility with Capitalism, not about the relative merits/demerits of it nor those particular to Christianity. So focus the debate on that. Not irrelevant tangents.

Evil is not synonymous with wealth; for example God made Isaac wealthy (see Genesis around chapter 26.)

You've got that wrong. The majority of the patients (in Canada) just happens to be part of the lower class and they abuse the health care system....
Mmm... I don't feel this thread is about the minority(?) of poor people that abuse the system or about the viability of a free (tax-paid) education and healthcare system (or our government's willingness to maintain them) and it's arguable that we could (or not) make it work. Whatever the case, this is really not an economic thread. The only point being argued here is the relationship between Jesus and Capitalism... Nevertheless, I will reply to your comments since there is obvious relevance to the theme. Now I ask you to bare with me, since you've opened Pandora's box...

My family worked hard since teenagers when they immigrated to Canada, unlike the able people on social welfare, scamming the gov't of money.
You come from a humble background; so do I. When my father died in 1982, he left my mother behind (aged 36) with 3 children aged 6, 8(me) and 10. As you can imagine, with 3 children, her chances of finding another partner where close to nil. One guy did move in at a time, after dumping his wife. One year later he went out to buy cigarettes and never came back (this is not a metaphor). Today, I'm 31 and my mum's wage is less than 1,000.00 euros. Go back 23 years and do your mathematics to calculate how hard my mum's life was (you can add about 30% to her wage, between my dad's pension and child support). Despite all difficulties, she always taught us to be honest - above all - and that "as long as we had food on the table, we would be fine". She could never get me that bicycle I so much wanted but I never felt hungry and I never walked with bare feet. Fortunately, I was born in Paradise and my "poorish" childhood was filled with Nature and freedom, instead of playstations and computers. My mum never cheated the system nor lived out of charity, neither did I nor my brothers. She did pay a heavy price though... At the age of 60, she looks (and thinks) older than her same age childhood friends. Still, she is one of my beacons of light.

From the age of 15, I worked summers and weekends so I could have some pocket money to go on holidays and do ordinary teenage stuff. At 18, and because I could not afford university, I dropped my studies to start working full-time (I bought that bicycle with my first wage). At 21 (by 1995), I emigrated to the UK with less than 2,000.00 euros in my pocket to take on a University Degree. Fortunately, they were "free" at the time (100% sponsored by the government). After graduating with 3 commendations and a National Student Award, I worked for 7 years for some of the best companies in my field, earning from 1,300.00 to 2,000.00 euros a month (not much if you live in London).

After the market crash in 2001 and 9/11, which destroyed my 2 year old business, I returned home in 2002. I dreamed of buying a flat with my partner (something that was out of our reach in London)... For a while, the knowledge and experience I had gained in the UK seemed to give me an advantage, until the economic crisis meant that someone would always undercut me with slightly cheaper but substantially lower quality work. I was competing with people who churned out crap work done in half an hour, while I tried to hold to my honesty and professional values that demanded the best quality of service I could offer. I could not accept having to deceive my clients and myself, just so that I could buy that flat or drive a better car. In 2005, my life crashed and burned. My clients were owing me over 10,000.00€, including tax money which I could not hand over to IRS and VAT. Some clients cancelled jobs half-way through the work done and were unwilling to pay a dime. I ended up with IRS and VAT fines to pay, social security payments overdue (all accumulating interest) and neither money nor time to take these matters to the court. Still, I kept my head up. I got a job being paid 1,200.00€, working an average of 60 hours a week. Some days I would work 24/7 but I never got extra pay over the normal hours. The multinational company was a sham, people spent their days shouting and blaming each-other for the failures of all... Until I cracked. After 3 months, I dropped the job and became depressed. I lost my 500€/month rented 1 bedroom flat, my car and everything I had built upon. My partner (an illegal alien) lost the job after 6 months here. Few companies wanted to risk the heavy fines on hiring illegal workers, after a government crackdown. Today, I'm staying at my mum's again, after more than 11 years of financial independence.

So you may understand why I am sick and tired of this talk of how poor people abuse the system. However unintended (you seem nice enough not to mean it), it's offensive and demoralising of those who hold to their honesty throughout their lives. I guarantee you we are many. My honesty and my family is pretty much what I have left. What for, I ask? What's the point of being honest and be constantly called a thief and a liar, through cruel generalisations? Have you people got no heart? Why is it, that when the ruling classes run out of arguments, it is always the poor's fault who abuse the system, who use drugs, who steal and who kill (as if these were "exclusive activities of the poor")? Why is it never the fault of corrupted politicians for not finding solutions to avoid abuse of the system (while they're paid a good wage, given many benefits and a state-owned top-of-the-range BMW)? Why is it never the fault of the banks that blatantly escape taxes (they pay 10% on what they declare, which doesn't include what's transferred to their offshore accounts)? Why is it never the fault of the corporations that escape taxes and force workers to work extra hours for no pay (if you don't do it, someone else will)?

No, it's always the poor that get the end of the stick. We're the lazy ones, we're the drug addicts, we're the thieves and the liars... Most of my friends are poor and - fortunately - I do not know one, who's living on welfare or cheating the system (maybe I'm lucky). Currently, I am unemployed but I cannot ask for any benefits, since I was never given a contract and since I had ran out of money to pay my social insurance, due to the accumulated client debts. Fortunately, I've still got some fish and meat on the table while some elders are eating 2 potatoes a day (in southern Europe, not Africa)...

You say "If we were a communist country where all the classes were treated equal, then we would be living in poverty despite our immense contribution to our society." Well, I don't know much about Communism and I certainly wouldn't like to see my freedoms regulated but maybe, just maybe, we would have a bit more equality and the poverty might not be so extreme, since - at least - basic healthcare and education would still be accessible.

The sad reality is that there is no way my mum could have afforded to bring up 3 or even 2 children attending school today, not on a ±1,300.00€/month budget. Neither I would have managed to pay tuition fees in the UK or anywhere else. My younger brother and his partner are both working, but they can't afford to rent a flat for themselves. My older brother's wife had to lie at work in the first two months of her pregnancy because her contract was due to be renovated. I've given up on having children, because I cannot bare the thought of not being able to provide a roof, food or clothes to a child. If I was born today and had to live the same life again, my circumstances would be substantially worse and I guarantee you that I wouldn't be writing these words at the age of 31. I would be lucky if I could learn how to write this fluently in my native language. I would be lucky, if I had not fallen to the temptation of cheating the system to have decent food on the table.

Don't get me wrong... I am not a miserable person who has accepted self-defeat. I've spent this week looking at my last 5€ bill and thinking "I don't need it because I don't smoke, I don't drink and I don't go out anymore." My "vices" are to walk my dog by the sea and in the woods. My partner has now gone back home to get some work and I hope for the day that we'll be together again. Our love is stronger than ever and, despite all our difficulties, I feel I am the richest man on earth. I dropped my career because I'm not willing to become another hypocrite. Instead, I build my own projects to teach children how to save water and take care of the environment, even if I strongly believe that it's all in vain and that the tide of events is too strong to withstand... At least, I'm doing my share. I spent my last Xmas among children that will probably never have the chance to see or do a tenth of what I've already seen and done. I was their Santa Claus and the smiles I brought on those children's faces was worth more than the thousands of euros I am still owned today, by business owners who have a house and a car of their own...

When I think of Jesus and his dreams for mankind, when I look at the pictures of my last Xmas party, my heart fills with shame and sorrow for what we've done with His garden and with His children... Still, I will lift my head again, for I have my honesty and my principles pretty much intact. Not much - I know - but enough for me to look, with peace of mind, towards the day I close my eyes to rest. I do not fear death, even if I have no illusions about His Paradise (lost). After all, I am one of the richest men on planet earth and my richness will follow me to the grave.

Sorry all, for my really looooooooooooong rant...

http://www.photohosting.info/uploads/1672f321d9.jpg

One of the happiest days of my entire life.
I must have hugged this little girl about a dozen times.
She just kept coming back for more...

:D

Recently I have been torn between the idea of my faith and my core ideologies. As it is plainly and painstakingly obvious, I am highly capitalist and I admire individual power and success. Herein lies the problem. Christianity is typically a faith resting on the base premise of charity, collectivist ideals and a general disdain for wealth, something I cannot personally sympathise with.

So, my question then is, is any form of Christianity compatible with its twin pillar, Capitalism? Often I have heard Protestantism is the free-marketeer's brand of Christendom. Is this so? Moreover, is any faith compatible with it, notwithstanding Satanism and perhaps Judaism? I am not open to the notion of becoming faithless; merely seeking to see if I can reconcile my faith with personal beliefs.

Finally, this is a question of the faith's compatibility with Capitalism, not about the relative merits/demerits of it nor those particular to Christianity. So focus the debate on that. Not irrelevant tangents.

Let me be brief ( as I usually *try* to be ).

The very notion of private property ( as opposed to property-rights being a non-permanent license-to-use from God ) is, in itself, contrary to the Mosaic Laws.

Therefore, any branch of Christianity that would wish to endorse the notion of private property would have to start off with renouncing the Old Testament.

So your personal views on property are more important to you than your beleif in god? Well, nice to know.

Christianity bases on fundamental laws of the society, I don't see why discussing about capitalism is off topic.
As long as it's done within the constraints of Christianity and not a mere economic discussion of Capitalism, it's not off-topic. If you post about Capitalism, without regard for Christian values, then it is off-topic. Remember, this thread is not about Christianity or Capitalism but about the values these both represent and whether they are compatible or not and whether they can be reconciled.

Recently I have been torn between the idea of my faith and my core ideologies. As it is plainly and painstakingly obvious, I am highly capitalist and I admire individual power and success. Herein lies the problem. Christianity is typically a faith resting on the base premise of charity, collectivist ideals and a general disdain for wealth, something I cannot personally sympathise with.

Well if youre looking for a religion not based on charity (since, you know, helping others is horrible...) you have 2 choices:

Satanism
Atheism

Those are the only 2 who wont mind your absurd level of greed and severe contempt for others.

Well if youre looking for a religion not based on charity (since, you know, helping others is horrible...) you have 2 choices:

Satanism
Atheism

Those are the only 2 who wont mind your absurd level of greed and severe contempt for others.

Right on bruva:)

I believe strongly that capitalism is the economic system that throughout time has helped the most people to earn a living off of their labors. Christianity and capitalism do not conflict and can serve each other.
Does your remark consider the reality of exploitative sweat-shops packed with underpaid labourers?

Anti-sweatshop activists will be holding a festive holiday-themed protest to demand that Levi’s take responsibility for labor violations. Demonstrators will hold cardboard cut-outs of mock Levi’s jeans styles, linking these to sweatshop exploitation. At the same time, hundreds of postcards will be collected and sent to Levi’s. Protesters will also be singing satirical songs that highlight corporate power and sweatshop exploitation to the tunes of Christmas carols.

Since January 2005, garment workers in Lajat factory in Gomez Palacio, Mexico have been organizing to address sweatshop conditions including:
- unpaid overtime
- lack of access to drinking water and clean bathrooms
- exposure to dangerous chemicals
- denial of freedom of association

Since workers began organizing to form an independent union, they have experienced harassment by management, police attacks, blacklisting, lock-outs, and reduction of wages to starvation levels. Because Levi’s is Lajat’s largest client, workers and their supporters are calling for Levi’s to ensure workers’ rights are respected at the factory.

No one cares, really. Fass does it with style, it's sort of his thing.
I know he's never going to be banned for it, but it's worth noting how frequently he gets into bitter arguments with other regular posters, even those who agree with him politically. Often due to his vendetta against Christianity.

Well, since you asked.

" Judaism as a religious vision emphasizes the integrity, freedom, and independence of the individual, as well as his or her responsibilities to society. Individual property rights were therefore as important to the Hebrew Bible as they later were to John Locke."
Then why have Jews been typically overrepresented in socialist movements in history?

Also, the whole full employment thing isnt socialist...its getting the most people off welfare and helping out the economy.
Were you born right-wing? You don't seem to know much. Welfare is not the pinnacle of socialist achievement. Full employment is a socialist objective because full employment would grant all power to the workers, not the employers.

Liberation Theology is not about charity. That is why Pope Benedict XVI and the other members of the Catholic leadership despise it. It is about justice - about remaking society in a manner that reflects the human dignity of every human being, instead of leaving it in the hands of a super-rich elite that exploits everyone else.
I agree. I should have thought of that.

Therefore, any branch of Christianity that would wish to endorse the notion of private property would have to start off with renouncing the Old Testament.
That's not a problem in itself, is it? Many that I know do, if only subconsciously, treat it as a sort of mythology or analogy.

Liberation Theology is not about charity. That is why Pope Benedict XVI and the other members of the Catholic leadership despise it. It is about justice - about remaking society in a manner that reflects the human dignity of every human being, instead of leaving it in the hands of a super-rich elite that exploits everyone else.
I agree. I should have thought of that.
Let them lead and set the example then. It's all nice preaching it but the reality is that the Catholic leadership's practice is extremely far from what they preach on a daily basis. The Vatican is super-rich. Francis of Assis; Now that was one of the best examples of true Christian leadership. Not saying that everyone should live like that but, in my humble opinion, I do believe all church members should...

Recently I have been torn between the idea of my faith and my core ideologies. As it is plainly and painstakingly obvious, I am highly capitalist and I admire individual power and success. Herein lies the problem. Christianity is typically a faith resting on the base premise of charity, collectivist ideals and a general disdain for wealth, something I cannot personally sympathise with.
You haven't much choice: "blessed are the poor", "man cannot serve both God and Mammon", etc. Christ is set against wealth, you have to choose!


So, my question then is, is any form of Christianity compatible with its twin pillar, Capitalism? Often I have heard Protestantism is the free-marketeer's brand of Christendom. Is this so?
Only if you distort Christianity out of all proportion.
Moreover, is any faith compatible with it, notwithstanding Satanism(Satanism probably is Capitalistic) and perhaps Judaism?
Judaism is mainly as non-Capitalist as Christianity ( bar an equivalence between material and spiritual blessing which is tenuous to say the least but is leapt upon by the anti -semites(?) )
I am not open to the notion of becoming faithless; merely seeking to see if I can reconcile my faith with personal beliefs.

Finally, this is a question of the faith's compatibility with Capitalism, not about the relative merits/demerits of it nor those particular to Christianity. So focus the debate on that. Not irrelevant tangents.
You have to choose!

practice benevolent capitalism.

religion with its rules is a waste of time -- consider merely jesus' core teachings of loving god and loving others as yourself. everything else is window dressing.

with love as the basis of your christian faith/morality, it is quite possible to practice captialism still:

- love your fellow (wo)man in your business dealings
- love the earth and be sound in your ecological dealings
- give to caesar what is caesar's -- pay your taxes
- love the less fortunate -- be generous with your wealth

in fact, jesus himself gave the ultimate formula for wealth:

"give and it shall be given unto you. pressed down, shaken together, and running over -- so shall *man* give unto you..."

true love-based christianity and capitalism need not be at odds with each other, so long as you keep these tenents in mind.

if you truly love others as much as you love yourself, you will find no shortage of people falling over themselves to do business with you, because they know they can trust you and prosper at the same time themselves.

benevolent capitalism is win-win for everyone.

Let me be brief ( as I usually *try* to be ).

The very notion of private property ( as opposed to property-rights being a non-permanent license-to-use from God ) is, in itself, contrary to the Mosaic Laws.

Therefore, any branch of Christianity that would wish to endorse the notion of private property would have to start off with renouncing the Old Testament.

Would you care to elaborate upon this. I have never heard it said before and am very curious about it.

@ Satan
My family worked hard since teenagers when they immigrated to Canada, unlike the able people on social welfare, scamming the gov't of money. From all the hard work from my father and mother, we are now an average tax payer, which did not come from luckiness. They still come home every night at 3 am and working their way to slightly earlier retirement. This is because of capitalism, the hard working gets rewarded, and the lazy people who go to work at 8:00 AM and come home at 5:00 AM are merely average.
Does the manipulation of an otherwise beneficial system by a small minority justify cutting off all said benefits to the people who really need them?

Recently I have been torn between the idea of my faith and my core ideologies. As it is plainly and painstakingly obvious, I am highly capitalist and I admire individual power and success. Herein lies the problem. Christianity is typically a faith resting on the base premise of charity, collectivist ideals and a general disdain for wealth, something I cannot personally sympathise with.

So, my question then is, is any form of Christianity compatible with its twin pillar, Capitalism?
When in doubt, ditch Christianity.

Or, if you really don't want to, just make up some excuses for why Christianity supports whatever it is you believe in. That's what all the various sects have done, so why not you?

Maybe the answer is to pretend to not be capitalist by passing around the collection plates saying its for a good cause when in reality it just goes towards your Escalade.

Peculiarly enough, I had the same song on. In any case, that is what disturbs me; the hypocrisy. The condemnation of wealth and greed within the Bible, yet the actual divergence when it comes to practice.

As it's been said a few times, there is not condemnation of wealth, just condemnation of loving wealth. When you get to a point in your faith were u love your money more then you love God, then it becomes a sin. Untill then wealth is great. Even to the point where God will bless you with extreme wealth. It's the question of will you still believe if it were all gone?

As it's been said a few times, there is not condemnation of wealth, just condemnation of loving wealth. When you get to a point in your faith were u love your money more then you love God, then it becomes a sin. Untill then wealth is great. Even to the point where God will bless you with extreme wealth. It's the question of will you still believe if it were all gone?

What if God blesses you with wealth for the sole reason of passing it on to others less fortunate? What if its a test? To love god for giving you wealth is just as absurd as loving wealth.

Job was rich, and he was righteous. Joseph of Arimathea (Jesus uncle) was also rich. The bible does not forbid people from gaining wealth, it just places an emphasis on charity.

Alot of people take Acts 5 out of context. they miss
Act 5:13 And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them.

Obviously they were not the last christians, but the evangelists (Those ambassadors of the early church) did pool their money socialistically. However the rest of the church practiced the tithing system. Since there is no more levitical preisthood , and the church is no longer the government, the churchs main revenue shoudl be from freewill offerings.

Job was rich

Last time I checked, he had alot of bad shit happen to him too. Bad shit that God did.

How about the story of Lazarus and the rich man?

There was a rich guy who had many feasts and ignored the poor people around him. There was a poor guy called Lazarus who ate the crumbs that fell from the rich man's balcony but accepted his poverty. They both died.

The rich guy went to hell, not because he was rich, but because he neglected to take the oppertunity to help the poor. Lazarus went to heaven, not because he was poor, but because he accepted that he was poor, and did not covet the money of the rich man.

You can read what Wikipedia has to say here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus

Christianity doesn't hate rich people, just people who refuse to help their fellow man.

I guess christianity and capitalism can be incompatible.Im pritty sure that greed(avarice) is a sin in christianity, as is lust, as is gluttony and capitalism seems to be saying, greed is good, it is good to lust after a product/lifestyle
capitalism seems to promote selfishness,capitalism promotes what is good for business whether it be exploiting people for profit or destroying the environment.I think if you read genmesis it says that god gave 'man'the earth to look after-not destroy through greed.
to me capitalism (or at least unchecked capitalism) is unchristuian.but i may be proven wrong.

What if God blesses you with wealth for the sole reason of passing it on to others less fortunate? What if its a test? To love god for giving you wealth is just as absurd as loving wealth.
Ultimately, if you hold on to wealth you are "loving it", whether you verbally admit it or not...

Also, when considering accumulating wealth, only the hypocrite will turn a blind eye to the human cost of producing his/her wealth.

Exploiting the poor and giving only a little back - as charity - is hardly the best Christian example...

There are some Christians which will profess to believe in the free market. But they don't understand capitalism, and they don't really want to.

Capitalism on its most basic level is materialistic, individualist and based on rational selfishness and personal judgement.

Christianity (as most other religions) is spiritual, collectivist and based on faith and divine judgement.

There is such a thing as Christian Economics, but that has nothing to do with capitalism. Instead they stand for rather socialist ideals of equality etc.

A few quick articles I found:
http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/2001_fall/woehrling.html
http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/2236_47e.htm
http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/whatsice.htm

Also, I believe the Mondragon project was started by a priest:
http://www.justpeace.org/mondragon.htm

So, no, one cannot be both Christian and Capitalist without grossly distorting either.

Your premise here is not wholely correct. Christianity is about "choice", the gift god gave us. Socialism inherently forces equality and technically forces charity by restraining excessive profit . This is where Christianity and socialism diverge.

Christianity champions free will, and to this note so does Capitalism. Capitialism seeks to establish freedom from governmental rule, to allow individuals the ability to conduct their buisness in the manner which best fits themselves while serving the public. The very idea of charity itself is giving freely to those who have not. Being forced to give negates the very idea of charity, and the very virtue behind it.. you should not give because you have to, but because you want to.

Of course the idea of making profit is where christianity and capitalism may conflict.. but there inlies the inherent Choice.. it is how you invest that profit which will define you, hence the freedom of choice. Will you put those profits to philanthropic causes, or hord it.... Will you invest it in ur company (technically a seperate entitiy from an individual) creating jobs for others who have not.... or will u put it in a bank to collect interest.

In fact on many levels, Capitalism and Christianity exist in harmony. I would argue more so then socialism. Essentially because Socialism is a system which compells individuals to be charitable... rather then asks them to.

practice benevolent capitalism.

religion with its rules is a waste of time -- consider merely jesus' core teachings of loving god and loving others as yourself. everything else is window dressing.

with love as the basis of your christian faith/morality, it is quite possible to practice captialism still:

- love your fellow (wo)man in your business dealings
- love the earth and be sound in your ecological dealings
- give to caesar what is caesar's -- pay your taxes
- love the less fortunate -- be generous with your wealth

in fact, jesus himself gave the ultimate formula for wealth:

"give and it shall be given unto you. pressed down, shaken together, and running over -- so shall *man* give unto you..."

true love-based christianity and capitalism need not be at odds with each other, so long as you keep these tenents in mind.

if you truly love others as much as you love yourself, you will find no shortage of people falling over themselves to do business with you, because they know they can trust you and prosper at the same time themselves.

benevolent capitalism is win-win for everyone.

it depends if you count material wealth as winning.

Job was rich, and he was righteous.
Yeah, but Job's family got slaughtered by God.

So I guess the moral is that it's possible to be rich and righteous, but only if you let God murder your family first?

The very idea of charity itself is giving freely to those who have not. Being forced to give negates the very idea of charity, and the very virtue behind it.. you should not give because you have to, but because you want to.
I'm afraid your argument may fail on a technicality... :D

Why? Because otherwise this would mean you could buy your "salvation", actually giving rich people an advantage over the poor. Jesus couldn't leave such a mega-loophole in his law. So how might a richman be saved, if not by giving money to charity? It has been mentioned here already:
Jesus said "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits. When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it's what comes out of your mouth that will defile you."
Meaning:

1. Jesus-style charity is not a richman giving money to ONGs, it's a richman pulling its sleeves up and working with the ONGs.
2. Jesus-style charity is action, not a monthly direct debit.

I'm afraid your argument may fail on a technicality... :D

Why? Because otherwise this would mean you could buy your "salvation", actually giving rich people an advantage over the poor. Jesus couldn't leave such a mega-loophole in his law. So how might a richman be saved, if not by giving money to charity? It has been mentioned here already:

Meaning:

1. Jesus-style charity is not a richman giving money to ONGs, it's a richman pulling its sleeves up and working with the ONGs.
2. Jesus-style charity is action, not a monthly direct debit.

Oh contraire mon cher.. Never did I say it was the amount of giving which defined the virture of charity, but merely the desire to [for the express purpose of helping others]... In the qoute which you took from me, I was comparing Christianity a religion based on free will to both Capiaitalism (an economic system based on free market) to socialism (one based on a governmental controlled market). In one economic system, you are forced to help those around you, where the other.. the choice is left to you. Jesus would not have condoned "forced" givings, because it impeds on the greatest gift we are given.. Choice.

I do not feel in the slightest that my comment infers what you have implied.. Of course, Christianity as Jesus himself stated, would call on you to give all you have to the person who has not.. but you have to WANT to give that for it to be virtuious... and only does capitlism instill this idea as a tenant (being free will to do what you will with your profit)

The person who gives through direct deposit because he wants to, is already better off then the person who gives because he is forced to (in the form of state taxes)

Last time I checked, he had alot of bad shit happen to him too. Bad shit that God did.
perhaps you should read both the first and last chapters of Job. might clear up that gaping hole in the story you have there.

Did God curse Job? No, Satan did, as a bet.

Job 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.


Did God Make Job Poor? No

Job 42:12 So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.
Job 42:13 He had also seven sons and three daughters.
Job 42:14 And he called the name of the first, Jemima; and the name of the second, Kezia; and the name of the third, Kerenhappuch.
Job 42:15 And in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.
Job 42:16 After this lived Job an hundred and forty years, and saw his sons, and his sons' sons, even four generations.
Job 42:17 So Job died, being old and full of days.

Oh contraire mon cher.. Never did I say it was the amount of giving which defined the virture of charity, but merely the desire to [for the express purpose of helping others]... In the qoute which you took from me, I was comparing Christianity a religion based on free will to both Capiaitalism (an economic system based on free market) to socialism (one based on a governmental controlled market). In one economic system, you are forced to help those around you, where the other.. the choice is left to you. Jesus would not have condoned "forced" givings, because it impeds on the greatest gift we are given.. Choice.
Point taken... :headbang: :D However, in this case I don't think you can say that in a socialist government people are exactly "forced" to help, unless we're talking about a dictatorial government. If the people vote for socialism (or some other old or new social ideology), they are using that choice, right?

I do not feel in the slightest that my comment infers what you have implied.. Of course, Christianity as Jesus himself stated, would call on you to give all you have to the person who has not.. but you have to WANT to give that for it to be virtuious... and only does capitlism instill this idea as a tenant (being free will to do what you will with your profit)
Question is: can Capitalism succeed (on a national or even global level), without over-exploiting the poor? So far, I don't think we have examples of that happening...

perhaps you should read both the first and last chapters of Job. might clear up that gaping hole in the story you have there.

Did God curse Job? No, Satan did, as a bet.

Job 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.


Did God Make Job Poor? No

Job 42:12 So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.
Job 42:13 He had also seven sons and three daughters.
Job 42:14 And he called the name of the first, Jemima; and the name of the second, Kezia; and the name of the third, Kerenhappuch.
Job 42:15 And in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.
Job 42:16 After this lived Job an hundred and forty years, and saw his sons, and his sons' sons, even four generations.
Job 42:17 So Job died, being old and full of days.


Satan basically says "Yo God, if this guy gets fucked, he wont worship you no more" and God said "Wanna bet?" God let it happen, which is just as bad as doing it himself.

Point taken... :headbang: :D However, in this case I don't think you can say that in a socialist government people are exactly "forced" to help, unless we're talking about a dictatorial government. If the people vote for socialism (or some other old or new social ideology), they are using that choice, right?...

We know the majority in any society will always be the impoverished and middle class... "The Majority" as you may well know if you live in the states, is rarely representative of the entire society... and even within a majority, there are differing motives behind each decision. All you do when you vote, is to give the power to another entity (in this case the government) to make decisions.. and it is THEY who will decide weather or not to be charitable, and in what manner.. it is hardly then correct to say, it is the people making these choices...

Question is: can Capitalism succeed (on a national level), without exploiting the poor? So far, I don't think we have examples of that happening...

But then this is the entire reason why Capitalism is more compaitable with christianity, because we are talking about individuals choice, and their desire to be virtious or not... of course capitalism has yet to wholely succeed without exploiting the poor, because capitalism relys on each individuals desire to be virtious. This falls in line with Christianity's belif, that every individual person has to find their own salvation.

Such is human nature.

i havent read all this so i apologise if i am repeating.

jesus was by any definition a socialist. he rebellede against an unjust regieme leading to his death, physically attacked money lenders, preached charity and frugality, if not collectivism. the list goes on. or put another way, his message is a million miles away from some of the envalgelical greed and bile we witness today

the reality is up until relatively recently the catholic church interpreted the bible as i set out there, banning ursury until the middle ages (enter the jews, hence their reputation for moneylending, one of the original causes of anti-semitism was them lending to christians in the dark and middle ages). some of the mercantilist classes were unhappy with this and jumped on the reformation as a more business freindly version of religion.

If he has exacted usury Or taken increase -- Shall he then live? He shall not live! If he has done any of these abominations, He shall surely die; His blood shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:13)

"In you they take bribes to shed blood; you take usury and increase; you have made profit from your neighbors by extortion, and have forgotten Me," says the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 22:12)

to me it is very hard to reconcile any form of christianity with third world debt and other practices of contemporary capitalism

i havent read all this so i apologise if i am repeating.

jesus was by any definition a socialist. he rebellede against an unjust regieme leading to his death, physically attacked money lenders, preached charity and frugality, if not collectivism. the list goes on. or put another way, his message is a million miles away from some of the envalgelical greed and bile we witness today

the reality is up until relatively recently the catholic church interpreted the bible as i set out there, banning ursury until the middle ages (enter the jews, hence their reputation for moneylending, one of the original causes of anti-semitism was them lending to christians in the dark and middle ages). some of the mercantilist classes were unhappy with this and jumped on the reformation as a more business freindly version of religion.

If he has exacted usury Or taken increase -- Shall he then live? He shall not live! If he has done any of these abominations, He shall surely die; His blood shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:13)

"In you they take bribes to shed blood; you take usury and increase; you have made profit from your neighbors by extortion, and have forgotten Me," says the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 22:12)

to me it is very hard to reconcile any form of christianity with third world debt and other practices of contemporary capitalism

Yet again, socialism is the practice by which government regulations compell you to give money to those less fortunate, while Capitalism leaves it to the individual, to use his profit however he pleases. It was not Jesus's practice to compell people to give up their wealth, for one of his greatest friends (Lazerous) was a wealthy man. Rather he said, it is up to each person to find their own salvation... it is their own faith which will save them, and no one elses. While Jesus had the idea that everyone should help one another, the means by which he promoted reaching this point, were not through force but through free will (which is inherently compatiable with Capitalism)

i dont believe atacking moneylenders and himself and his supporters rejecting all of materialism and the emphasis on not coveting wealth is compatible with a 20th century political theory that overseas 80% of the planet live in poverty.

just because there are capitalists who profess to be christians does not mean christianity is capitalist, although it has been co-opted for that purpose.

the closest tag we have today to describe jesus as a man is socialist

Recently I have been torn between the idea of my faith and my core ideologies. As it is plainly and painstakingly obvious, I am highly capitalist and I admire individual power and success. Herein lies the problem. Christianity is typically a faith resting on the base premise of charity, collectivist ideals and a general disdain for wealth, something I cannot personally sympathise with.

So, my question then is, is any form of Christianity compatible with its twin pillar, Capitalism? Often I have heard Protestantism is the free-marketeer's brand of Christendom. Is this so? Moreover, is any faith compatible with it, notwithstanding Satanism and perhaps Judaism? I am not open to the notion of becoming faithless; merely seeking to see if I can reconcile my faith with personal beliefs.

Finally, this is a question of the faith's compatibility with Capitalism, not about the relative merits/demerits of it nor those particular to Christianity. So focus the debate on that. Not irrelevant tangents.

Depends on the species of capitalism. Going beyond the clear fact that certain practices that buttress capitalism are clearly derided by Christ, such as usury (we call it collecting interest), as well as the usual Biblical references (and just for the sake of clarity: there is a specific word used in the Greek for the the geographical "Eye of the Needle". This word is not used in the oldest Christian texts. Therefore, the claim that he's talking about not carrying around too much wealth is, how shall we say, a lie), religion and economics can be seperated out and play seperate spheres in the public life. To the extent that they can, I think it is possible to make capitalism and Christianity coexist. Nonetheless, the more libertarian versions of capitalism simply cannot coexist.

Put simply, I think that the kind of capitalism espoused by Adam Smith could, at least in theory, be compatible with Christianity. Unlike later capitalist theorists, Adam Smith (to his credit, I think) recognized that the public life has a dynamic well above and beyond mere economic theory that must be nourished and sustained for society to survive. For instance, he was a strong early advocate of mandatory public education. His rationale for this was that irrespective of how profitable it might be to privately fund education, it was outweighed by the fact that by mandating public education, we create a collective of individuals with a common sense of "we" rather than "a chance collective of individuals" and a common sense of purpose, something that must exist in order for the stable, civil society necessary for capitalism in the first place to emerge. Capitalism itself, in Smith's view, could only work in the context of a society of people networked together for a common purpose of building a commonly-apprehended good life.

This good life is in large part the purpose of religion to articulate. Certainly there are other ways, such as philosophy, that can prescribe what our society ought to be like and practical ways of approaching that ideal. But there is no tool that society has that can approach religion for instilling a common view of that good life in the common man. In that context, I feel it easy to say that Christianity at its core does a very good job of 1) articulating a fairly good set of standards of how a good life and a good citizen behave, and 2) giving us reasons why we should believe it even beyond the mere benefit of a good life and good community. Its teachings encourage us to work hard, honor our promises, and treat others fairly, teachings that both build civil society and, doncha know, also serve as very good business practices; I've often found that the most advantageous way of treating people is exactly as I would want them to treat me. It is true that Smith made famous the maxim of rational self-interest, but it should be clear that he was talking about what people do, not necessarily what they ought to do. If people were perfectly altruistic and living in a perfect world, they would still act in many ways exactly as Smith postulates, just for different reasons.

On the other hand, later thinkers like Friedman, Hayek, and Rand I think erred not so much in that they were obsessively self-interested, but because they didn't recognize the value of civil infrastructure that Smith did. The great libertarian sin isn't greed, lust, or vanity; it's ignorance of the fact that there are worths in things like honor, friendships, family, and community that cannot be calculated in dollar terms and shouldn't even if they could. This unwillingness to attribute any value to anything that can't be stamped with a bar code cuts to the very heart of what Christianity is and what Christianity does. In that sense, the two systems simply cannot coexist within any ordered, logical system of society.

i dont believe atacking moneylenders and himself and his supporters rejecting all of materialism and the emphasis on not coveting wealth is compatible with a 20th century political theory that overseas 80% of the planet live in poverty.

just because there are capitalists who profess to be christians does not mean christianity is capitalist, although it has been co-opted for that purpose.

the closest tag we have today to describe jesus as a man is socialist

While christianity may not be defined wholey as capitalistic, it is Capitalism in the 20th century which best relates to Jesus' form of Christianity, rather then Socialism... He may have been a socialist in his ideals... but the execution of those ideals was inherently based on free-will... which is a tenant found most notiably in Capitalism, not socialism!

Both capitalism and socialism have the same goal... a market where everyone may prosper, however, the execution to that goal is very different.. In Adam's own theory given market freedom both consumers and buisness should thrive on a whole, as consumer demand drives the market. It is our human nature which corrupts this theory, just as it is human nature which corrupts communism (making it unrealistic).. and it is jesus's wish that we as individuals try to over come that nature to sin. Such is our test

While christianity may not be defined wholey as capitalistic, it is Capitalism in the 20th century which best relates to Jesus' form of Christianity, rather then Socialism... He may have been a socialist in his ideals... but the execution of those ideals was inherently based on free-will... which is a tenant found most notiably in Capitalism, not socialism!

First, free will is not a necessary doctrine for Christianity. John Calvin, the man who by acclamation invented the Protestant work ethic, for instance, did not believe in free will at all. Jesus nowhere talks about free will. You are simply assuming to be central what is nothing more than disputed Augistinian tradition.

The larger problem, however, is that I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you say that socialism is incompatible with free will. I've read through quite a bit of Marx, Bakunin, Proudhon, Millerand, Lenin, Trotsky, and Luxembourg, but I have never once seen any one of them claim that either people don't have free will or that they at some historical point in time they won't. The simple fact that people are socialized, and that most people who are socialized to believe something will in fact believe it is 1) not a doctrine unique to socialism, and 2) not incompatible with free will doctrine. If you can clear this up for me where I misread any/all of them, I'd be much obliged.

We know the majority in any society will always be the impoverished and middle class... "The Majority" as you may well know if you live in the states, is rarely representative of the entire society... and even within a majority, there are differing motives behind each decision. All you do when you vote, is to give the power to another entity (in this case the government) to make decisions.. and it is THEY who will decide weather or not to be charitable, and in what manner.. it is hardly then correct to say, it is the people making these choices...
If what you said was true, you are clearing society completely from the responsibility of the choice they make at the poll, because the decisions lie solely with their leaders. You know as well as I that this is rubbish. Voting is a responsibility. When you cast a vote, you are not writing a blank cheque. You vote on a set of promises that are laid in front of you. If the leaders fail on their promises, that's another issue... In any case, I think we're loosing track of the subject. We should come back to Capitalism and Christianity, not dwell for too long on voting responsibility; an undeniable fact of any democracy.

But then this is the entire reason why Capitalism is more compaitable with christianity, because we are talking about individuals choice, and their desire to be virtious or not... of course capitalism has yet to wholely succeed without exploiting the poor, because capitalism relys on each individuals desire to be virtious. This falls in line with Christianity's belif, that every individual person has to find their own salvation. Such is human nature.
Hold on a second... How exactly does Capitalism rely more on individual desire to be virtuous than - say - Liberal Socialists? You see, the later option gives your individual the same freedom of choice to be virtuous as Capitalism while it is more supportive of the poor, unlike Capitalism that exploits the poor. You are arguing as if Socialism takes freedom of choice but that is rubbish as well. Nothings stops a whole group of Socialists of being very virtuous and "charitable", on top of already having a more balanced society.

Choice is not unique to Capitalism... I think you're mixing Capitalism with a Liberal Democracy, but Capitalism is more:

The definition of capitalism given in dictionaries has changed over time. For example, the 1909 Century dictionary defined capitalism as:
1 The state of having capital or property; possession of capital.
2 The concentration or massing of capital in the hands of a few; also, the power or influence of large or combined capital.
The pursuit of self-interest is commonly regarded as playing an essential role in capitalism. Many writers, such as Adam Smith and Ayn Rand point to what they believe to be the benefit of individuals trading for their self-interest rather than altruistically attempting to serve the "common good." Smith, widely considered to be the intellectual father of capitalism, says in Wealth of Nations:

"By pursuing his own interest, [an individual] frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the [common] good."

Ayn Rand, probably the most outspoken advocate of the role of self-interest in capitalism, says in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal:
"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes."

Capitalism has nothing to do with freedom to be virtuous, according to the most important writers on the subject. You're trying to paint Capitalism pink, we know too well who pays the price. I, for one, am one of those people who has lost much due to greedy businessmen.

While christianity may not be defined wholey as capitalistic, it is Capitalism in the 20th century which best relates to Jesus' form of Christianity, rather then Socialism...
Since when this thread is about which is best for Christianity: Capitalism or Socialism?

I think you're stepping off topic now...

Since when this thread is about which is best for Christianity: Capitalism or Socialism?

I think you're stepping off topic now...

Ummm, dude...Like, page 12 of a topic on NS, the fact Christianity and Capitalism are still being mentioned is amazing.

Since when this thread is about which is best for Christianity: Capitalism or Socialism?

I think you're stepping off topic now...

i think this is as on topic as you get. some are trying to clam jesus as a capitalist, so they opened the door to analysis of what if any the bible hints at in terms of 21 century politics. and it certainly isnt wars for oil, enron and third world debt, is it.

I've never heard of capitalism and Christianity being in conflict.

First, free will is not a necessary doctrine for Christianity. John Calvin, the man who by acclamation invented the Protestant work ethic, for instance, did not believe in free will at all. Jesus nowhere talks about free will. You are simply assuming to be central what is nothing more than disputed Augistinian tradition.

The larger problem, however, is that I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you say that socialism is incompatible with free will. I've read through quite a bit of Marx, Bakunin, Proudhon, Millerand, Lenin, Trotsky, and Luxembourg, but I have never once seen any one of them claim that either people don't have free will or that they at some historical point in time they won't. The simple fact that people are socialized, and that most people who are socialized to believe something will in fact believe it is 1) not a doctrine unique to socialism, and 2) not incompatible with free will doctrine. If you can clear this up for me where I misread any/all of them, I'd be much obliged.

That "disputed" augustine tradition seems to have found its way into the heart of most of the major christian denominations such as Catholisism, Orthodox, and many of the Protestant secs... sure, not every sect falls in line.. but then as we see with some... there are those radicals in ever religion >.>

It is in the very practice of Socialist government in the 20th century that governments control much if not all of the buisness sector, dictating who works and for how much... in some cases going as far as land restributions, all in the effort to attain an equal economic playing field for all. This very foundation is as well seen in things such as worker compensation programs, universal health care, wealthfare and the like. All this is made possible through taxation. Do you as a citizen in a socialist society have a choice which if any social policies you wish to contribute to ? No. Living in such a society you cannot opt out of helping the less fortunate, because it is built into every aspect of your financial life. How then can you argue free will is not essentially removed from the idea of chairty ?

In contrast to this, capitialism which wholey rejects governmental interferance on a wide scale, and calls for free market. Here individuals have control over the money they make and largely... how it is allocated. They choose weather to hord it or to donate it. While some is (of course) taken into social programs, much of it is left to the consumer to use as they will.
This is the very definition of free will.

It is in the very practice of Socialist government in the 20th century BLAH-BLAH-BLAH-BLAH
Listen to yourself! You're not talking of faith anymore. If you want to talk about Socialism Vs Capitalism you should look for another thread. You are trolling...

That "disputed" augustine tradition seems to have found its way into the heart of most of the major christian denominations such as Catholisism, Orthodox, and many of the Protestant secs... sure, not every sect falls in line.. but then as we see with some... there are those radicals in ever religion >.>

It is in the very practice of Socialist government in the 20th century that governments control much if not all of the buisness sector, dictating who works and for how much... in some cases going as far as land restributions, all in the effort to attain an equal economic playing field for all. This very foundation is as well seen in things such as worker compensation programs, universal health care, wealthfare and the like. All this is made possible through taxation. Do you as a citizen in a socialist society have a choice which if any social policies you wish to contribute to ? No. Living in such a society you cannot opt out of helping the less fortunate, because it is built into every aspect of your financial life. How then can you argue free will is not essentially removed from the idea of chairty ?

In contrast to this, capitialism which wholey rejects governmental interferance on a wide scale, and calls for free market. Here individuals have control over the money they make and largely... how it is allocated. They choose weather to hord it or to donate it. While some is (of course) taken into social programs, much of it is left to the consumer to use as they will.
This is the very definition of free will.

Well put. Makes you think about all the Reds on the forum that scream murder over the wiretapping thing but yet advocate socialism....:headbang:

I've never heard of capitalism and Christianity being in conflict.
Always a first time for everything, hey? :D

That "disputed" augustine tradition seems to have found its way into the heart of most of the major christian denominations such as Catholisism, Orthodox, and many of the Protestant secs... sure, not every sect falls in line.. but then as we see with some... there are those radicals in ever religion >.>

It's mostly in there so they can blame all the trouble of the world on someone other than God.

That "disputed" augustine tradition seems to have found its way into the heart of most of the major christian denominations such as Catholisism, Orthodox, and many of the Protestant secs... sure, not every sect falls in line.. but then as we see with some... there are those radicals in ever religion >.>

It is in the very practice of Socialist government in the 20th century that governments control much if not all of the buisness sector, dictating who works and for how much... in some cases going as far as land restributions, all in the effort to attain an equal economic playing field for all. This very foundation is as well seen in things such as worker compensation programs, universal health care, wealthfare and the like. All this is made possible through taxation. Do you as a citizen in a socialist society have a choice which if any social policies you wish to contribute to ? No. Living in such a society you cannot opt out of helping the less fortunate, because it is built into every aspect of your financial life. How then can you argue free will is not essentially removed from the idea of chairty ?

In contrast to this, capitialism which wholey rejects governmental interferance on a wide scale, and calls for free market. Here individuals have control over the money they make and largely... how it is allocated. They choose weather to hord it or to donate it. While some is (of course) taken into social programs, much of it is left to the consumer to use as they will.
This is the very definition of free will.

Do you not choose who to vote for? Do you not choose to remain in civil society? If you do, then you consent to the results of the political process, whether you agree with the particulars or no. If, by contrast, you felt some decision so egregious as to be intolerable, you would find a different political community that agreed with you or create your own. Ergo, choice is still involved. That isn't socialism; it's John Locke 101.

Do you not choose who to vote for? Do you not choose to remain in civil society? If you do, then you consent to the results of the political process, whether you agree with the particulars or no. If, by contrast, you felt some decision so egregious, you would find a different political community that agreed with you or create your own. Ergo, choice is still involved. That isn't socialism; it's John Locke 101.
Don't feed the troll please...

If what you said was true, you are clearing society completely from the responsibility of the choice they make at the poll, because the decisions lie solely with their leaders. You know as well as I that this is rubbish. Voting is a responsibility. When you cast a vote, you are not writing a blank cheque. You vote on a set of promises that are laid in front of you. If the leaders fail on their promises, that's another issue... In any case, I think we're loosing track of the subject. We should come back to Capitalism and Christianity, not dwell for too long on voting responsibility; an undeniable fact of any democracy.


Hold on a second... How exactly does Capitalism rely more on individual desire to be virtuous than - say - Liberal Socialists? You see, the later option gives your individual the same freedom of choice to be virtuous as Capitalism while it is more supportive of the poor, unlike Capitalism that exploits the poor. You are arguing as if Socialism takes freedom of choice but that is rubbish as well. Nothings stops a whole group of Socialists of being very virtuous and "charitable", on top of already having a more balanced society.

Choice is not unique to Capitalism... I think you're mixing Capitalism with a Liberal Democracy, but Capitalism is more:




Capitalism has nothing to do with freedom to be virtuous, according to the most important writers on the subject. You're trying to paint Capitalism pink, we know too well who pays the price. I, for one, am one of those people who has lost much due to greedy businessmen.

Ill put this to you then... in a capitalistic society, do you not have more control over your own capital then in a social society ? You are taxed less and in turn are able to distribute your wealth however you please... essentially.. given more free will to use your money how you will. Yes, capitialism relies on self interest for success, and opposes the ideal of a common public interest.. Its that common interst which takes free will away from individuals, because the individuals desires and demands are no longer given presidence. So essentially, while it is not the direct intent of capitialism to promot interest for the less fortunate, neither does it discount it if individuals so seek to persue them. This is where i delinate the idea that capitialism is centered on free will. No one can tell you one MUSt give to the poor.. it is left for you to do so. Hence, the sense of Charity is stronger here, because people must look past their own self interest and give willingly rather then forcibly.

While it is true in a socialist society no one stops you from being chairtable.. it does force you to a very large degree to infact be charitable.. this is accomplished through the vast social programs each individual is compelled to contribute to through taxation (whether they belive in those programs or not). This is where free will is taken away... because no longer do you have the option to not give... to not be charitable. This essentially takes the virtue out of the charity. There is no self sacrifice because someone else has made that sacrifice on your behalf (with your own goods)

Ill put this to you then...
*ignores* [reason: off-topic]

I've never heard of capitalism and Christianity being in conflict.

ever read the bible?

This whole thread can be summed up with: Everybody reads into the bible what matches his/her outlook in life and no claim is any more valid than the other.

This whole thread can be summed up with: Everybody reads into the bible what matches his/her outlook in life and no claim is any more valid than the other.
Not relevant with this topic... Why? Because Jesus is a clear anti-capitalist, whichever source you look at (not just the bible). One common misjudgement most people defending the heretic wedding between Jesus and Wealth have made here is that:

rich man [in the scriptures] = capitalist

However, not all rich men are capitalists by nature. Fortunes were largely inherited 2,000 years ago. You could be a rich man and not have accumulated any wealth. Also, Jesus-style charity is NOT giving money away, it's actually rolling up your sleeves and getting your hands dirty.

"Salvation" is not a holiday destination you can purchase on the internet.

This whole thread can be summed up with: Everybody reads into the bible what matches his/her outlook in life and no claim is any more valid than the other.

i disagree. neo-cons who advocate pre-emtive war, corporate greed, third world debt, capital punishment, gitmo and see merit in poverty have less of a right to seriously call themselves christians than people to the left who practice some of what jesus did and advocated, a distrust of wealth, questioning authority, rejection of the ruling classes morality, forgiveness, actual good works to try and make a difference etc.

Gui de Lusignan, surely you are mistaking socialism (sweden) with stalinism? control of all the business sector? tetra pack? volvo? ericsson? astrazenca? electrolux? saab? securitas? IKEA? scandia bank? not bad for a counry of 9m that according to the right eats babies and suppresses all enterprise.

Do you not choose who to vote for? Do you not choose to remain in civil society? If you do, then you consent to the results of the political process, whether you agree with the particulars or no. If, by contrast, you felt some decision so egregious as to be intolerable, you would find a different political community that agreed with you or create your own. Ergo, choice is still involved. That isn't socialism; it's John Locke 101.

pfft, how infintile to suggest that always a choice does exist... to this same note one may argue if one finds nothing but poverty in a capitialistic society, he/she should then leave to the socialist one [though this may not always be a realistic option]. But that is for another topic

Might I also remind you John Locke also belived in a state of nature, and the social contract.. the social contract being, if the leader/government could not fulfil their end of the contract, rather then leaving as you suggest.. it was ones dutey to rebel and overthrow that government/leader. Locke also belived in a weak government and that the state of nature was the prefered state as here every person was equal and independent.

However, I do not agree with Locke.. i dont feel just because you feel your mistreated it is your OBLIGATION to rebel... rather, it is your obligation to comply while continuing an effort to peacefully change the policies you oppose... Perhaps you support a revoltionary ideology.. I do not. To this note, this is why i belive people essentially lose their choice in the matter of charity in socialist economies... to remain lawful and civil, one must accept restrictions on your own rights in hopes of later righting those wrongs.

pfft, how infintile ...
*trolliiiiiiiiiiiing*

The true Christian would, ideally, live as Jesus. This means he most likely would not have a home, as he would be wandering from place to place, looking for places where he's needed, giving whatever he can to those who need it.

Unless you're planning on being like that, you probably don't have to worry about money. Give to a charity if it makes you feel better.

Don't feed the troll please...

He's not a troll. He's presenting, however misguidedly, syllogistic argumentation. If he were merely spouting ad hominems about the poor, then he'd be a troll, but he's not.

Ill put this to you then... in a capitalistic society, do you not have more control over your own capital then in a social society ? You are taxed less and in turn are able to distribute your wealth however you please... essentially.. given more free will to use your money how you will. Yes, capitialism relies on self interest for success, and opposes the ideal of a common public interest.. Its that common interst which takes free will away from individuals, because the individuals desires and demands are no longer given presidence. So essentially, while it is not the direct intent of capitialism to promot interest for the less fortunate, neither does it discount it if individuals so seek to persue them. This is where i delinate the idea that capitialism is centered on free will. No one can tell you one MUSt give to the poor.. it is left for you to do so. Hence, the sense of Charity is stronger here, because people must look past their own self interest and give willingly rather then forcibly.

While it is true in a socialist society no one stops you from being chairtable.. it does force you to a very large degree to infact be charitable.. this is accomplished through the vast social programs each individual is compelled to contribute to through taxation (whether they belive in those programs or not). This is where free will is taken away... because no longer do you have the option to not give... to not be charitable. This essentially takes the virtue out of the charity. There is no self sacrifice because someone else has made that sacrifice on your behalf (with your own goods)

Okay, so if I get your argumentation straight, your argument is that socialism restricts choice and/or freedom, and it restricts your ability to be charitable, and because freedom and charity are necessary components of Christianity, socialism is unChristian. I am going to go over each one in turn.

The first thing I would say is that you don't seem to have a very good definition of freedom. Freedom to you apparently means liscence to do whatever the hell one pleases irrespective of the costs to others. No doubt you would disagree with that; after all, a libertarian creedo is that the right to swing ends at another person's face. But you are advocating one of two possible systems. The first is the kind of capitalism that really exists. That capitalism systematically disenfranchises people of choice all the time: in 2003, for instance, over a 150,000 college-qualified students didn't go for no other reason than because they were too poor to do so and charity couldn't cover the difference. Given the pay disparities between non-college grads and graduates, the system you advocate in this case not only didn't stop swinging at their face; it doubled them over and sodomized them with an economic plunger handle for good measure. The second kind of system is the fantasyland construct given by libertarians where rational self-interest does not entail stifling competition, where unions are not smashed with violent corporate force, and where nary an externality is to be found requiring government intervention. In that case, I'd like to say that you've articulated precisely nothing, because if 250 years of history has taught us anything, it's that we're never going to reach that kind of capitalism, and if we did, it wouldn't last very long.

In either case, you are going to have to accept that ultimately your definition of freedom is really one of liscence, and that your ability to choose is ultimately defined by your ability to pay. Now you have to ask yourself: is that the kind of world I'd really like to live in? If you want nothing more than naked liscence, the best place in the world isn't America, but rather Mogadishu. There, if you have $1 million and not a lot of ethical compulsions, you can have pretty much as much freedom as you want. I doubt you'd like it for long, though, because everyone else has the right to do whatever they want, too. That includes the right to shoot you and take your $1 million. In order to secure that property, then, you have to accept limits on your freedom. Rationally based and properly implemented, sure, you can't do all that you can do in an anarchical system. But you don't have to worry about the problems inherent in such a system either. So the ultimate conclusion seems to be that unlimited freedom is a lot less good than the ordered, rationally-based limitations inherent in an ordered society. In such a society, you are in many ways more free simply because you don't have to worry about being shot all the time.

Now, as for charity, I would say that, again, you have a very narrow and poor definition of charity. Charity isn't an act; it's an intent or volition. If I give some bum on the street 5 dollars because I want to make myself seem like a nice guy to my date, I'm not being charitable even if I did give money. That being said, volition doesn't have to be purely individual in nature: if I like the candidate who talks about the need for social benefit programs, like him because he's charitable, vote for him, and pay taxes, I see no distinction between that and charity. If you don't agree, to be honest, tough goddamn cookies: your right to be selfish does not extend to the right to starve fellow citizens, and if charity isn't enough to cover the bill (which it never is), and you lose the legistlative process, then as we've established above, the needs of a good, well-ordered civil society take precedence, because the alternatives are that those poor citizens survive by other means, usually at the expense of the rich in a decidedly unlikeable redistribution scheme.

Ultimately, I really think you need to bone up on your Locke, because that would explain so well why your system fails so badly. Libertarianism assumes inexplicibly that people pursue self-interest but won't pursue it to the point of overthrowing a social and economic order that doesn't let them survive. Libertarianism inexplicibly assumes choice is the ultimate good while conveniently ignoring how the standard of choice is restricted solely to the well-to-do. Libertarianism inexplicably condemns communism (and for God's sake, man, call what you are referring to clearly: it isn't socialism, it's STALINISM) for its airy pronouncements of what we can make human nature and the economy while ignoring the fact that despite 250 years of tinkering, we've never once even come close to creating the system libertarians espouse. Libertarianism pronounces that people should be free of laws that are immoral but inexplicably assumes that people won't fuck up or revolt against a market system that's killing their children.

pfft, how infintile to suggest that always a choice does exist... to this same note one may argue if one finds nothing but poverty in a capitialistic society, he/she should then leave to the socialist one [though this may not always be a realistic option]. But that is for another topic

Might I also remind you John Locke also belived in a state of nature, and the social contract.. the social contract being, if the leader/government could not fulfil their end of the contract, rather then leaving as you suggest.. it was ones dutey to rebel and overthrow that government/leader. Locke also belived in a weak government and that the state of nature was the prefered state as here every person was equal and independent.

However, I do not agree with Locke.. i dont feel just because you feel your mistreated it is your OBLIGATION to rebel... rather, it is your obligation to comply while continuing an effort to peacefully change the policies you oppose... Perhaps you support a revoltionary ideology.. I do not. To this note, this is why i belive people essentially lose their choice in the matter of charity in socialist economies... to remain lawful and civil, one must accept restrictions on your own rights in hopes of later righting those wrongs.

It isn't and never was an obligation to rebel when you suffer for your government. Moreover, you could argue it isn't even a moral obligation to rebel when the government is tyrannical and therefore injurious to all people's ends. But the simple fact is that what is infantile is to suppose that people will starve before they will break the rule of law. You yourself being the advocate of rational self-interest, riddle me: where is the rational self-interest in that? Morality doesn't need to have anything to do with it, as simple descriptive claims of what humans will do when pushed is sufficient. If your system fails to account for human nature, then you have a failed system, no matter how well-organized, just as you have a failed theory of thought if, however elegant, it is untrue.

The true Christian would, ideally, live as Jesus. .

is there a prize for most banal statement of the week?

really, christians being christlike? never :rolleyes:

is there a prize for most banal statement of the week?

really, christians being christlike? never :rolleyes:

Banal it might be, but it needs to be pointed out to many people, considering I rarely see a christian acting Christ-like in any way at all. In fact, most christians I know are christian only by name, and see nothing wrong with being that way.

Regardless, it answers the question. If you're really going to worry about being a christian, the first question you should ask yourself isn't "Am I going to hell for having money?".

So your personal views on property are more important to you than your beleif in god? Well, nice to know.


Well if youre looking for a religion not based on charity (since, you know, helping others is horrible...) you have 2 choices:

Satanism
Atheism

Those are the only 2 who wont mind your absurd level of greed and severe contempt for others.
Brings tears to my eyes :( ...

Not. :rolleyes:

Don't presume yourselves well acquainted enough with me to make value judgements on my personality.

He's not a troll. He's presenting, however misguidedly, syllogistic argumentation. If he were merely spouting ad hominems about the poor, then he'd be a troll, but he's not.
His basic argument is that Capitalism gives individuals the freedom over their resources to give to charity.

It has been shown here that:

1. Giving money to charity is not a Christian value.
2. Freedom is not unique to Capitalism.
3. Jesus did not address total freedom. (i.e: the spirit can be Christian, even when the body could be enslaved - we have to see this in the historical context)
4. Socialism was never central in this argument. (rather, it was the compatibility between Capitalist and Christian values)
5. This is not a thread about Political ideology A vs. Political ideology B.
6. This is a thread about Christian values first and Political values second. (for believers, faith comes first)
7. E.M. asked which religions where compatible with Capitalism.
8. E.M. didn't ask which political ideology was most compatible with Christianity.

Still, he keeps regurgitating the same things over and over without consideration of any of the points mentioned above.

What's trolling then?

Brings tears to my eyes :( ...

Not. :rolleyes:

Don't presume yourselves well acquainted enough with me to make value judgements on my personality.
Hey E.M. Welcome back home... :D Cheer up and lift your head...

When in doubt, ditch Christianity.

Or, if you really don't want to, just make up some excuses for why Christianity supports whatever it is you believe in. That's what all the various sects have done, so why not you?
Yep, I'll end up doing the latter I guess.

This whole thread can be summed up with: Everybody reads into the bible what matches his/her outlook in life and no claim is any more valid than the other.
It would seem so. It is simply that vague.

Recently I have been torn between the idea of my faith and my core ideologies. As it is plainly and painstakingly obvious, I am highly capitalist and I admire individual power and success. Herein lies the problem. Christianity is typically a faith resting on the base premise of charity, collectivist ideals and a general disdain for wealth, something I cannot personally sympathise with.

So, my question then is, is any form of Christianity compatible with its twin pillar, Capitalism? Often I have heard Protestantism is the free-marketeer's brand of Christendom. Is this so? Moreover, is any faith compatible with it, notwithstanding Satanism and perhaps Judaism? I am not open to the notion of becoming faithless; merely seeking to see if I can reconcile my faith with personal beliefs.

Finally, this is a question of the faith's compatibility with Capitalism, not about the relative merits/demerits of it nor those particular to Christianity. So focus the debate on that. Not irrelevant tangents.

for the millionth time (probably)

individual charity was preached by Jesus, not collectivism.



Jesus never endorsed the LEVYING of taxes, he simply said to pay the taxes levied against (and in so doing, do not disobey the law).

Jesus did say, however, that money is not to be worshiped -- making money is not bad, but if money is #1 to you, then there's a problem.

Jesus never endorsed the LEVYING of taxes, he simply said to pay the taxes levied against (and in so doing, do not disobey the law).

Jesus did say, however, that money is not to be worshiped -- making money is not bad, but if money is #1 to you, then there's a problem.
No, money is definitely not an end in itself to me...just a means. Simply because I like economic freedom doesn't mean I worship cash, like some indeed do.

Yep, I'll end up doing the latter I guess.
E.M., with that he meant being hypocritical. Is this what you want for your life? Or do you want to work on conciliating your faith with your needs?

It would seem so. It is simply that vague.
What's vague about the words of Jesus?

E.M., with that he meant being hypocritical. Is this what you want for your life? Or do you want to work on conciliating your faith with your needs?
My life won't change dramatically either way. I simply believe, I do not make religion the centrepiece of my life. There is nowhere near enough evidence to justify this.

What's vague about the words of Jesus?
The Bible is an infinite series of contradictions.

His basic argument is that Capitalism gives individuals the freedom over their resources to give to charity.

It has been shown here that:

1. Giving money to charity is not a Christian value.
2. Freedom is not unique to Capitalism.
3. Jesus did not address total freedom. (i.e: the spirit can be Christian, even when the body could be enslaved - we have to see this in the historical context)
4. Socialism was never central in this argument. (rather, it was the compatibility between Capitalist and Christian values)
5. This is not a thread about Political ideology A vs. Political ideology B.
6. This is a thread about Christian values first and Political values second. (for believers, faith comes first)
7. E.M. asked which religions where compatible with Capitalism.
8. E.M. didn't ask which political ideology was most compatible with Christianity.

Still, he keeps regurgitating the same things over and over without consideration of any of the points mentioned above.

What's trolling then?

Given that this is. . .what. . .Page 13 of a topic on NS General, it's amazing we aren't watching Subamba and Sinuhue engaging in cybersex by this point. The fact that he's not completely addressing the issue cited in the first article does not detract from the fact that he's talking about related matters and making at least somewhat logical argumentation. That means that he's not a troll, because a troll is, at the risk of confusing him with the Flamewarrior grenade, someone who is solely about making loud and dumb maxims about something other than the subject matter and insulting anyone who disagrees in the crudest terms possible. So he's not a troll. Capitalista, certainly, but not a troll.

My life won't change dramatically either way. I simply believe, I do not make religion the centrepiece of my life. There is nowhere near enough evidence to justify this.
So why call yourself an "Enlightened Catholic"? You seem to have lost your faith...

The Bible is an infinite series of contradictions.
You know as well as I that Jesus isn't "an infinite series of contradictions."
The bible maybe but what you have to remember is that Jesus did not write it, his followers did.

So why call yourself an "Enlightened Catholic"? You seem to have lost your faith...
I call myself that because I do not stick to the strictures of literal interpretation of the Bible, nor do I engage in dogmatic faith.

You know as well as I that Jesus isn't "an infinite series of contradictions."
The bible maybe but what you have to remember is that Jesus did not write it, his followers did.
His words, as others have shown, can be interpreted in a number of ways and multiple contexts. It's not clear-cut.

Given that this is. . .what. . .Page 13 of a topic on NS General, it's amazing we aren't watching Subamba and Sinuhue engaging in cybersex by this point. The fact that he's not completely addressing the issue cited in the first article does not detract from the fact that he's talking about related matters and making at least somewhat logical argumentation. That means that he's not a troll, because a troll is, at the risk of confusing him with the Flamewarrior grenade, someone who is solely about making loud and dumb maxims about something other than the subject matter and insulting anyone who disagrees in the crudest terms possible. So he's not a troll. Capitalista, certainly, but not a troll.
Ok... So I misunderstood the significance of "Troll" (I'm still new here) :headbang: I thought someone who repeatedly ignored the points raised and the main theme was a Troll...

for the millionth time (probably)

individual charity was preached by Jesus, not collectivism.



Jesus never endorsed the LEVYING of taxes, he simply said to pay the taxes levied against (and in so doing, do not disobey the law).

Jesus did say, however, that money is not to be worshiped -- making money is not bad, but if money is #1 to you, then there's a problem.

He also preached that he was not here to replace Jewish law. What is Jewish law? Well, it's a doctrine that includes some fairly substantial redistributionist policies, like returning land sold to you, freeing Jewish indentured servants after a set period of servitude, and leaving substantial amounts of your own land free for whoever wishes to eat for it. This wasn't merely prescriptive action, mind you, this was the law of the land in ancient Israel.

If any of those policies had anything in common with modern capitalism, I might be more inclined to support it. As is, don't try to pretend that Jesus was not in some sense a "collectivist", to use your term. He didn't like the notion of people preying on the poor. He couldn't say that he also didn't like government allowing people to prey on the poor because the Romans would have killed him for his trouble. That being said, I see nothing in the Bible that discredits the idea that Jesus wasn't four-square for the economic policies of old Israel, and a lot that lends credence to it.

Ok... So I misunderstood the significance of "Troll" (I'm still new here) :headbang: I thought someone who repeatedly ignored the points raised and the main theme was a Troll...

Eh, don't sweat it. After all, it could be me that's wrong, and it's good to have people focused on actually answering the main question. Keep it up.

I call myself that because I do not stick to the strictures of literal interpretation of the Bible, nor do I engage in dogmatic faith.
Catholicism is Dogma and someone so unsure about the significance of Jesus' words, as you just said you were, can hardly be called "enlightened". At least drop that word from your sig. since it's clearly not you...

His words, as others have shown, can be interpreted in a number of ways and multiple contexts. It's not clear-cut.
You obviously had your mind set on what you wanted to hear. You were obviously never interested whenever it was shown to you that Jesus didn't support the accumulation of wealth. You just hoped a majority would comfort you and say "it's perfectly fine being a Capitalist Christian".

What other reason could there be to start this thread in the first place?

Catholicism is Dogma and someone so unsure about the significance of Jesus' words, as you just said you were, can hardly be called "enlightened". At least drop that word from your sig. since it's clearly not you...
I will use words as I please. You are in no position to tell me what I may or may not do. So don't even attempt it. If Catholicism is dogma, then my very homosexuality is sin. Which would again contradict Jesus in so many ways.

You obviously had your mind set on what you wanted to hear. You were obviously never interested whenever it was shown to you that Jesus didn't support the accumulation of wealth. You just hoped a majority would comfort you and say "it's perfectly fine being a Capitalist Christian".

Why did you start this thread in the first place?
I started it out of curiosity. There were many conflicting opinions here. Some of the more convincing ones came from people I know well and respect. Not merely because they pleased me.

Now, what I do wonder is why you are so defensive of the Christian faith. You yourself are not Christian. What is your agenda?

I will use words as I please. You are in no position to tell me what I may or may not do. So don't even attempt it.
I was giving you some friendly advice, don't make it sound like I gave you an order. You are not an Enlightened Catholic. If you were enlightened, you wouldn't hesitate about your faith. If you are not enlightened, why say you are?

If Catholicism is dogma, then my very homosexuality is sin. Which would again contradict Jesus in so many ways.
Actually, I would argue that Jesus was likely anti-dogma as well, so I wouldn't worry about that. He wasn't too keen on an authoritative church and Dogma implies one...

I started it out of curiosity. There were many conflicting opinions here. Some of the more convincing ones came from people I know well and respect. Not merely because they pleased me.
I believe you will find many-many-many more sound arguments on Capitalism being incompatible with Christianity than vice-versa, based on little more than the clear words of Jesus and the proven impact of Capitalism on the poor.

Here's a proverb from my home country: "The worse blind is that who doesn't want to see."

Now, what I do wonder is why you are so defensive of the Christian faith. You yourself are not Christian. What is your agenda?
Who said I'm not a Christian? My agenda was trying to help you answer your questions, remember? You asked for this forum's help in the first place.

Recently I have been torn between the idea of my faith and my core ideologies.
Now I realise you didn't want help, you were just being curious, right?...

I was giving you some friendly advice, don't make it sound like I gave you an order. You are not an Enlightened Catholic. If you were enlightened, you wouldn't hesitate about your faith. If you are not enlightened, why say you are?
Enlightened means that I am open-minded and well-read essentially. The Enlightenment was a movement towards knowledge and away from strict Dogmatic belief.

Actually, I would argue that Jesus was likely anti-dogma as well, so I wouldn't worry about that. He wasn't too keen on an authoritative church and Dogma implies one...
Yet he doesn't dismiss the Old Testament, which, if you take the Bible literally, condemns homosexuality, among other things.

I believe you will find many-many-many more sound arguments on Capitalism being incompatible with Christianity than vice-versa, based on little more than the clear words of Jesus and the proven impact of Capitalism on the poor.

Here's a proverb from my home country: "The worse blind is that who doesn't want to see."
Time will tell. I will read through the Bible myself. I am not about to stop being Capitalist though, that much is for sure.

Who said I'm not a Christian? My agenda was trying to help you answer your questions, remember? You asked for this forum's help in the first place.

I thought you were Agnostic. Nevermind.

Now I realise you didn't want help, you were just being curious, right?...
Advice, more than help, as well as curiosity.

I'm sick of the bigoted generalications of Christianity. there are 2 billion+ christians in the world, an overwhelming minority are of the extremist Robertson, Falwell, and GW Bush wings. I am a christian, and I am also a bleeding-heart liberal when it comes to everything but social issues. I think that advocacy of unregulated capitalism is inconsistent with Christianity

"He [Jesus] accompanied me in difficult times, in crucial moments. So Jesus Christ is no doubt a historical figure — he was someone who rebelled, an anti-imperialist guy. He confronted the Roman Empire.... Because who might think that Jesus was a capitalist? No. Judas was the capitalist, for taking the coins! Christ was a revolutionary. He confronted the religious hierarchies. He confronted the economic power of the time. He preferred death in the defense of his humanistic ideals, who fostered change.... He is our Jesus Christ."

-Hugo Chavez
Presidident of Venezuela

Enlightened means that I am open-minded and well-read essentially. The Enlightenment was a movement towards knowledge and away from strict Dogmatic belief.
Then what you are saying with "Enlightened Catholic" means "anti-dogmatic dogmatic", you silly :D hehehe you are crazy, you know? (it's not an offence - it's good to be a bit "crazy")

Yet he doesn't dismiss the Old Testament, which, if you take the Bible literally, condemns homosexuality, among other things.
This my friendly advice: The bible was written by men living 2000 years ago (who were likely to be homophobes because of the old testament). It also condemns adultery, doesn't it? However, didn't Jesus save the adulterous woman from being stoned saying "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"? What does that say to you? Jesus said "don't judge lest you be judged" yet, after he died, his followers ended up writing several gospels and other texts, some of which are extremely judgemental. This only shows that some of his students may not have been ready to spread the word (since they failed to understand Jesus basic lesson "don't judge" - not easy sometimes). Peter (the father of the church) was tempered, chauvinist (he treated Mary Magdalene with contempt), authoritative and even violent at times (remember Jesus arrest?) Do you think he was the best example to spread Christian values like peace, tolerance and brotherly love?

About 130 years later, a very self-righteous bishop was the brain behind the compilation of the bible, which was the church's first attempt to define orthodoxy. It only makes sense that he chose the texts that felt closer to his heart and interests, right? Now, this was no loving man. This same bishop wrote two other books about hunting christians that didn't accept the authority of the new Orthodox church (which later split in two parts: the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthdox Church). Hundreds, who knows thousands, of Christians were arrested, condemned and burnt at the stake. So you see, however much we may use the bible for guidance, we must be aware of who compiled it. This is why blind following of dogma is dangerous and actually takes you away from Jesus.

This is why, when I read the bible, I mostly stick to Jesus' quotes. After all, he is the only true Christian authority on earth (way over the apostles). I can't give you any certanties, of course, but in my heart I believe that a kind man like Jesus would not judge you for being truly in love with another man... He's more likely to judge the homophobes. Of course, if you lived 2000 years ago, he might find himself in a position where he had to say "don't do it again", because that was the law then and it was punished with death. Maybe he would tell you "be more discrete, next time, so you don't get caught." :D Who knows?

Time will tell. I will read through the Bible myself. I am not about to stop being Capitalist though, that much is for sure.
Maybe one day you may change your mind. :D In the meantime, try to follow my advice (do an experience). Read Jesus quotes, since they are the most enlightened. Here's the very inspiring Gospel of Thomas (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html), which wasn't included in the bible, because it contains a private conversation between Jesus and his apostles. On the same website you will also find the Gospel of Mary (Magdalene), The Gospel of Truth and many other amazing (if somewhat disturbing) texts.

I thought you were Agnostic. Nevermind.
I am an Agnostic Christian! :D I call myself a Christian because I believe in Jesus as a man and because I follow his teachings. I am Agnostic because I am uncertain about the existence of God, at least as most people define Him.

Advice, more than help, as well as curiosity.
Ok... Let me ask you this question [again]: What makes you want to call yourself a Capitalist? In a few words...

Might I also remind you John Locke also belived in a state of nature, and the social contract.. the social contract being, if the leader/government could not fulfil their end of the contract, rather then leaving as you suggest.. it was ones dutey to rebel and overthrow that government/leader. Except that in the case of a communist society, the leader of that society would be fulfilling the social contract by making it a communist society.

Ok... Let me ask you this question [again]: What makes you want to call yourself a Capitalist? In a few words...He already answered this, it's something to the effect of he likes the economic freedom. I think the real question is why he wants to call himself a Christian.

If you end up giving most of your money to charity then you are not accumulating wealth, so I don't think you can call yourself a true Capitalist. At best, you use Capitalism to donate to charity. At worse, you forget who pays the heavier price of Capitalism: the poor. I won't judge you because it is not my place...

Sigh. You, my hell-dwelling acquaintance, need to remember what capitalism is. Capitalism, as Xeno noted earlier in this thread, is based on each person acting in their own interest. It's a highly subjective thing, acting in one's own interest. Some people may see (as you seem to for some reason) that the accumulation of wealth is acting in one's own self-interest. Personally, I don't see that it's really in my interest to accumulate wealth. I think it's in my interest to give to charity and help others so as to improve the lives of those around me, thereby improving the society I live in. The strange thing is, I think it's in my self-interest to live in a happier, healthier, more equal community of folks. This, to me, is much more in my interest than accumulating a shitload of money and spending it on expensive toys that ultimately benefit me very little by enriching further those who are already doing quite well.

If the words of Jesus are too much for you, then maybe you should question your own faith. All the arguments I've presented are his, not mine.

You've presented Jesus' arguments against the accumulation of wealth (and I do oppose the accumulation of wealth as not being in the interest of society, myself, or the continuation of capitalism), not against acting in our own self-interest. Care to try again?

Recently I have been torn between the idea of my faith and my core ideologies. As it is plainly and painstakingly obvious, I am highly capitalist and I admire individual power and success. Herein lies the problem. Christianity is typically a faith resting on the base premise of charity, collectivist ideals and a general disdain for wealth, something I cannot personally sympathise with.

So, my question then is, is any form of Christianity compatible with its twin pillar, Capitalism? Often I have heard Protestantism is the free-marketeer's brand of Christendom. Is this so? Moreover, is any faith compatible with it, notwithstanding Satanism and perhaps Judaism? I am not open to the notion of becoming faithless; merely seeking to see if I can reconcile my faith with personal beliefs.

Finally, this is a question of the faith's compatibility with Capitalism, not about the relative merits/demerits of it nor those particular to Christianity. So focus the debate on that. Not irrelevant tangents.


Wealth is likely to turn you into an ass, and if it does not you are not likely to keep hold of it. The story about "easier to pass a camel [rope, whatever] through the eye of a needle" is often excused away. I do not believe it should be.

Large wealth can only be built on the backs of others, and excusing it a result of the system does not wash as it is we who make the system.

Large scale personal wealth is not morally justifiable.

Just a thought.

PS Catholic, should it be of interest.

I call myself [agnostic Catholic] that because I do not stick to the strictures of literal interpretation of the Bible, nor do I engage in dogmatic faith.


His words, as others have shown, can be interpreted in a number of ways and multiple contexts. It's not clear-cut.

That is pretty orthodox Catholicism; that the Old Testement illustrates the road to an understanding of God, the development rather than the goal. Therefore Deuteronomy is the initial faith of the Jewish people that develops until the truth is spelt out by Jesus.