14 Dec 12
Originally posted by FMFThen when I read rwingett's interesting quotes, I can't really see how the motion "Capitalism is more Christian than Socialism" can win the day.
The word "worth" in terms of interpersonal relationships, children, families, work colleagues, neighbours, community, school etc. means something quite different from the word "worth" in an economy. "Worth" in an economy refers to a monetary value of some kind.
For people who are unable to invest and can only sell their labour, their "worth" is exactly as li ...[text shortened]... he motion "Capitalism is more Christian than Socialism" can win the day.
Agreed. However, by the actions and beliefs of Christians (in the US at least) it seems that it does.
14 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsIn the parable of the talents is not Jesus demonstrating capitalism?
You ignore what Jesus had to say with his parables about capitalism. Being rich does not mean the person is a capitalist.
In Genesis 1:28, God says we are to subdue the earth and have dominion over it. One aspect of this is that humans can own property in which they can exercise their dominion. Since we have both volition and private property rights, we ...[text shortened]... nts is not Jesus demonstrating capitalism?
http://christianpf.com/the-parable-of-the-talents/
No. In the parable the "slaves" are working for the "master" - not for themselves. It makes no sense for the point to be about storing "for yourselves treasures on earth". The point is to do the best one can to do the will of God, i.e., "store up for yourselves treasures in heaven".
Matthew 6
19“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20“But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; 21for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
14 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsiderYou might find the documentary "Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream" of interest.
Capitalism does not offer equality of opportunity.
The idea that a person who is born into a wealthy family with connections and who benefits from the best education that money can buy does not have more opportunities open to them than someone born to illiterate parents who have never worked in their lives is fanciful to say the least.
Here's what one viewer took away from it:
What most struck me in the film was a study that social psychologist Paul Piff did with the game of Monopoly. Instead of giving players an equal start, he defined players as either rich or poor. The rich player received three times the usual starting cash. The poor player received half the usual starting cash, got half as much money for passing go, and had to roll one die instead of the usual two. Obviously, the poor player lost—and quickly. But what is interesting is that the designated rich players developed a sense of entitlement. They demanded their wages and seemed to feel large amounts of schadenfreude.
This is all very interesting, but I think the more important lesson we can learn from the game is something that Piff mentioned in the interview:
Let's imagine that you're invited to a game of Monopoly. And you arrive at this game to find out that all the property's been divided up. All of the money has already been handed out. But you're told, "Hey: go ahead and sit down. Play the game; we're going to give you a chance to play just like everyone else.
Here's the thing: you have, as the Republicans like to say, "Equality of opportunity." You get to roll the dice. You are as likely to land on Chance as anyone else. You too get $200 when you pass go. What's the problem?!
The problem is that you have no money and you would have no current opportunity to buy any property even if you had money. True equality would be if all the properties were unowned and everyone had the same amount of money—with the Monopoly economy or the real one. But check it out: you could still win. If you were ridiculously lucky—way more than "spade royal flush" lucky—you could win. And if enough people play enough games of Monopoly, eventually a poor player will win. Just like some small percentage of people in the real economy who grow up in poverty but go on to be hedge fund managers.
And that's what's so frustrating talking to conservatives who throw up the occasional exceptional success as proof that there really is "equality of opportunity." I think this Monopoly example really clarifies the issue. And I plan to use it a lot in the future.
Pasted from <http://franklycurious.com/index.php?itemid=2854>
14 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettIf they accept that the bible is authoritative and without error, then they must accept the passages from Acts as being binding, i.e. that Christianity has far more in common with Karl Marx than it does with Adam Smith.
It's interesting that the article you selectively quote from derides Karl Marx's quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Yet Marx himself is practically quoting the bible.
[quote]Acts 2:44 All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proc passages (along with the numerous other diatribes against the rich) with capitalism.
Christianity is as Christianity does.
I don't see how you (or they) can possibly reconcile those two passages (along with the numerous other diatribes against the rich) with capitalism.
Yet somehow they manage.
14 Dec 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOK. Let me know if you actually have anything worth saying. It is your thread after all.
[b]If they accept that the bible is authoritative and without error, then they must accept the passages from Acts as being binding, i.e. that Christianity has far more in common with Karl Marx than it does with Adam Smith.
Christianity is as Christianity does.
I don't see how you (or they) can possibly reconcile those two passages (along wit ...[text shortened]... the numerous other diatribes against the rich) with capitalism.
Yet somehow they manage.[/b]
14 Dec 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI think you have missed the point. The servants are being judged by their efforts. They are each given different amounts of capital to start with and are expected to turn a profit with what they are given. The one was not given much probably because the master did not expect as much from him. However, that servant could have gained a profit by putting the capital in a bank to gain interest, but instead he hide it and made no effort to increase the value. That person was considered lazy by the master and was fired from his job. It should be obvious that the good servants will share in the prosperity of their master.
[b]In the parable of the talents is not Jesus demonstrating capitalism?
No. In the parable the "slaves" are working for the "master" - not for themselves. It makes no sense for the point to be about storing "for yourselves treasures on earth". The point is to do the best one can to do the will of God, i.e., "store up for yourselves treasures in hea ...[text shortened]... s do not break in or steal; 21for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.[/b]
That is the way capitalism works. Some people have shown their ability to make good financial decision and have been entrusted with greater responsibility as a result. But the one that is too lazy to work will not make it in a capitalistic system. The lazy prefer a communistic or socialistic system.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by RJHindsIt doesn't make any sense that would Jesus be advocating gaining material wealth given the passage I quoted earlier. Or the following pasage? Or any number of other passages which indicate otherwise?
I think you have missed the point. The servants are being judged by their efforts. They are each given different amounts of capital to start with and are expected to turn a profit with what they are given. The one was not given much probably because the master did not expect as much from him. However, that servant could have gained a profit by putting th ...[text shortened]... will not make it in a capitalistic system. The lazy prefer a communistic or socialistic system.
24“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.
25“For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26“Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? 27“And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life? 28“And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, 29yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. 30“But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith! 31“Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ 32“For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33“But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
Do you also interpret the following literally?
John 6
51“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
Like the Jews in the following verse?
52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneA parable uses a story to convey a deeper message. However, this does not mean the story is false. It is not necessary to ignore the literal meaning of the parable story to get the deeper meaning. Clearly the parable uses a capitalistic example on Earth. Just as reward and punishment was given to the servants in the capitalistic system in the parable, so will it be in the Kingdom of God. Maybe the guy from the following link gives the deeper meaning of the parable that you were looking for. However, that is no reason for us to ignore the literal meaning.
It doesn't make any sense that would Jesus be advocating gaining material wealth given the passage I quoted earlier. Or the following pasage? Or any number of other passages which indicate otherwise?
[b]24“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can ...[text shortened]... began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/03/the-parable-of-the-talents/
In the same manner, there is no reason for us not to eat the bread and drink the wine in rememberance of Christ giving His body and blood to save the life of our souls, because they are literally bread and wine and only represent the body and blood of Christ. Of course, Roman Catholics may argue this point.