There is a distinction, in most cases, between how the Old Testament and the New Testament present wealth. Since most Christians now follow the New Testament, here are some of the more straight-forward examples: Luke 16:13-15: Note (from Wikipedia): Mammon is a term, derived from the Christian Bible, used to describe material wealth or greed, most often personified as a deity. The word itself is a transliteration from the Hebrew word "mammon", which means "money." The New International Version of Luke 16:7 is a bit more to-the-point than the King James, but since most people seem to use the King James, I will use it as well. If people use a different version in services, someone let me know. It should also be noted that this passage follows from a passage in which Jesus says that those who cannot be trusted with small things can neither be trusted with great things - so that those who are dishonest with worldly riches will be equally dishonest with great riches (meaning salvation). Another, this one from Mark 10:17-25: Following this is the famous "first shall be last" line. I bolded the part about giving to the poor - while excessive riches are seen to be a detraction from proper reverence for God, that is not the only aspect of riches mentioned by Jesus - he also endorses giving to the poor. Seems like a rather obvious statement to me. Now here's one from Timothy 6:9-11: Pretty straightforward, right? And from Timothy 6:17-19: The New International Version is, again, more to the point: And here's a nice handy passage, from James 5:1-6 directed toward wealthy oppressors: The same passage, from the NIV: One can pick out individual phrases from the Bible, take them out of context, and come up with cute phrases like "U DON'T WORK U DON'T EAT LOL" (as our brother in Christ TECH noted above in his quotation from that revered site "freemoneyfinance.com") but this is usually a misapplication of the material based on modern stereotypes - it discounts the fact that the vast majority of poor people in the United States are working poor. One could just as easily use that Thessalonians quotation to argue that those who simply sit in an office and shuffle papers around are not producing any food, and therefore should not eat ... it's the same sort of misapplication of the material. Those who like this sort of stereotype would be advised to read 1 John 3:17-18: If you're not clear on what shutteth upping your bowels of compassion is, here's the NIV: But, asking whether Jesus would be in favor of capitalism or socialism or whateverism is akin to asking whether Alexander the Great would be for or against microwaveable lasagna. It doesn't really make sense. But, given the copious passages dealing with attitudes towards wealth, and the actions of those who possess wealth, I think it's fairly clear that the vast majority of modern Capitalist-Christians are failing to understand their holy book, or just aren't all that interested in what it has to say (particularly if what it has to say makes them question their own attitudes toward wealth - could be very uncomfortable! But ... that's really the point, isn't it?) Even taking into consideration the fact that Jesus has no position on capitalism, it seems fairly apparent that the way modern capitalism works is antithetical to christian morality - capital works by exploiting the poor, it always has, and rewards those who are the most dedicated to their own greed and those who spend the most time pursuing their material desires - but that's only in the most general sense, because if you're born poor you have to work 10 times as hard to have half as much as anyone who is born middle-class. Today, with everyone working to make as much money as they can, and then using the money to make gaudy displays denoting how much money they have, and considering the possession of wealth to be somehow commensurate with the possession of personal qualities like intelligence and diligence and all sorts of kingly and enduring characteristics (that they naturally ascribe to themselves), it might be good to remember Proverbs 23:4-5:
Nope, just went completely off base in your post. The poor in capitalist countries are better off. Poor immigrants flock to capitalist countries. The poor can actually climb the economic ladder in capitalist countries, rather than being stuck in their social class. But I agee with you in that asking whether Jesus favors certain economic systems makes no sense. And I agree that certain Christian movements, like the ones that say God will make you rich if you believe in Him, are misinterpreting the Bible. But these Christian movements are pro-wealth, not pro-Capitalism. I don't think Joel Olsteen has ever talked about how low tax rates, free markets, and the growth of business are the will of God. Could be wrong though.
Yeah, sure, tell that to the chinese children who work for 5 cents an hour, so the business man in america can gain "capital". I don't see how you can say that about the poor. The quality of life is way greater when the working poor could be creating the material themselves, like it was before the capitalists took over in america. You take the people that would be sewing and making the clothes and destroy their business by creating a huge one that can sell it for 1/4th the price. Then, those people are forced to work for the factory instead.
The poor in capitalist countries are more efficiently exploited. When you're working more than 40 hours a week for a wage that will just support your current circumstances and not enable you to save, when you have no health insurance and no income in the case that you get ill, when there is no way for you to represent your own interests in any form of arbitration, then you are being exploited. And plenty of people here are stuck in their social class, and more are being stuck there with each passing generation as wealth is accumulated and fossilized in upper classes. Most countries now are within the global capitalist market, so talking about the poor in non-capitalist countries makes no sense - all countries are in the same market, effectively. The poor do not come to the United States because of capitalism because that is the same system they have at home, and the system that makes them poor there. If they come for anything like that, they come because here capitalism is somewhat regulated. But aside from that, the vast majority of immigrants to the U.S. now are from the middle-classes of other nations, not from the lower classes. But at any rate, this thread is not supposed to be a critique of capitalism per se, but a critique of the conflicts between capitalism and christianity. But it's still important to consider how modern attitudes on wealth are in direct conflict with genuine Christian values, and that those who are dedicated to the accumulation of wealth support a system that allows them to accumulate more than they need while that same system provides so many more with so much less. In a modern context, there is very little distinction between being pro-wealth and pro-capitalism - most are going to be both.
Authentic Christianity has no relationship to capitalism or socialism or communism, or democracy, or any form of earthly government or economics. Following Jesus means you are doing what He did. You are not asking the government to do it or not do it, that is irrevelant. What legislation did Jesus try to get the Romans to pass? How much time did Jesus spend with the Roman politicians? Jesus didn't start a ministry for the poor or healthcare, Jesus provided for the poor and healed the sick. That is what Christians do. We have no desire for money. We are stewards of what God allows us to earn. Yes we work hard and yes we are responsible, but not for the sake of wealth but for the sake of love. The use of resources, capital and money follows the love of Jesus Christ in the life of a Christian. How hard it is for the wealthy to enter God's kingdom, there is great temptation and responsibility with wealth. We live as if we have nothing and yet we have everything. It all belongs to Jesus Christ, we are entrusted to use what we earn wisely on His behalf.
Refman I said I believe the current core of the GOP (in terms of majority winning numbers in presidntial elections ) is in Appalachia and the Deep South and they are generally less educated. The leaders of the GOP will always be the monied elite or as Bush called them his "core". These folks are often times educated at elite schools as well as from monied backgrounds. As far as calling me names, you have done that frequently.
It's short-sighted to say that Capitalism is good for the poor. I'm not sure if statistically true, but I'm pretty sure that the gap between poor and rich has dramatically grown with capitalism. I think I heard once that 2% of the population own 60% of the world's resources now? Something like that. Also, world hunger is at a record high. Capitalism appears to be spreading rapidly, which is making more people hungry enough for money to exploit the weak. What I'm trying to say is that maybe the poor people of the strongest capitalist countries are better off - but that creates poverty elsewhere in the world. I recommend the CIGNA Health Insurance thread for anyone here who hasn't read it. True example of capitalism, even if only 10% of it is true.
People are naturally competitive against each other to attain food and resources for survival. Capitalism might be imbalanced and not fair to most. Buts it literally better than having nothing. Economics is an advanced system where people compete against each other in goods and services to attain monetary units for more goods and services, rather than looting & plundering a village to hoard its valuables. Exploitation can be needing the poor villagers to create commerce of their own and letting them die slow if they arent economically adept. Or good old massacring them cuz they're weak and have something you want. So we've gotten a little better over the centuries past brute force, but the system in place has flaws that need fixing. The key is to lessen the greedy and aggressive streak within us. A sound ecomomic system with ethical and religious undertones can alleviate that. Or genetic re-engineering. Whether capitalism is the culprit for growing world hunger, its plays a part. When inflation hits or when fuel prices go up from speculators or whatever, it effects the prices of poorer countries food imported or local to where millions can no longer afford food. Then some companies might outsource jobs to cheaper poorer countries (making them better) but in the countries left behind will be unemployed and more hungry people. Someone's gonna have to end up getting something for nothing here. The poor penniless hungry people arent always gonna be "deserving" of their plight. People gotta start helping and sharing more. But, if all these poor countries got paid comparable wages of Americans, goodness could you imagine the cost of everyday goods and cost of living? 99 cents store might be 3$ store. We'd all have to suffer a bit more. But if we want everyone to be helped, ANYONE thats currently living okay has to sacrifice a little. Americans would be begging to have capitalism back
The definition of Economis is disturbing to me. We decided that we have a huge flaw and literally erecting a system around that flaw is the best way to make money. Hold on just a bit. Wouldn't it be better if we slowed GLOBAL economic growth to a level where we are not looking for blood from our neighbours? Doesn't it make sense that if it takes more work (socialism) to get ahead of others, then we will work harder to get ahead? That would make more sense to me than pure capitalism. Adding a pich of socialism to that makes sense. It takes our human flaw and ensure that our reward is split into two (just like our intentions): - A reward for the hard work in the form of the money you received. - A kind of sacrificial charity in the form of the money you gave to be redistributed to those who have worked hard but have been less fortunate. I won't begin to even act like I know the answers to all this. I'm just throwing ideas out here. I'm not sure which components of each system would combine to make the best one. I just know that it's not pure socialism, capitalism or communism. It's a blend of all the different systems we have. I am certain that almost no one knows this answer. But I am dissapointed that we're not trying hard enough to find it. But that basic definition of Economics goes contrary to "love thy neighbour", doesn't it? Because to get ahead, you have to beat your neighbour. Individual ethics are never more important than in the intensely individualistic capitalist nations of today. Because if you don't practice discretion in giving out appropriate charity to those who are UNFORTUNATE, then no one will do it in your place.
I love this post. Thank you for it! My only disagreement is that I know very well people who put capital to work by assisting those less-fortunate...not by exploiting them. I'll add...the problem is with the Church in North America....not as much with the Church around the world. We have a co-opting of the dominant religion in this country by political power to hold up the notion that what we're doing at any point is good, right, true, eternal, Godly, etc. We seem hell-bent on talking about how right we are and how wrong everyone else is....we fail to see ourselves as sinners, unless we just want to fall back on it for convenience when someone calls us out on our hypocrisy. We equate the values behind the American flag with the values behind the Cross...demeaning Jesus, in my view. I see a younger generation in the Church seeing through this, though...and it's beginning to change. Let me also say...I know people who've sold nearly everything of their own so that they can give freely to others....I know people who've made all sorts of sacrifices to serve what they perceive to be the things God cares about. There is always some remnant of the Church in the church.
A virtual definition of the type of religion of the "Christian Right" that put the Bushes and Reagan, the Tom Delays etc into power.
Really? I remember, quite clearly, when he tells the rich man to go and give everything he has away in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, even though the man was perfect in all of the other rules.
It just seems kinda ****ed up that we have kids born into poor neighborhoods, and end up getting a crappier education than the rich kids. The rich kids did absolutely nothing except be born into a rich family, and end up getting a easy pass through life. I think that that is where thing need to change if anything, the education system. All schools from all parts of the city need to have equal funding, one not better than the other.
Well then you will have the rich send their kids to private schools. As we see it now the rich are basically not wanting to pay the taxes to have public schools equal to what they send their kids to, whether public or private. I suppose some of the folks above would argue that Jesus would have no problems with that. They could probably even come up with some Bible quotes from their ministers or argue that Jesus approved of this since he did not specifically address educational equality.
Please explain how rich people are imposing their will on local school districts to keep the taxes low. Folks that send their kids to private schools pay the same public school taxes that others do.
That's not what glynch wrote. Regardless, how are rich people imposing their will so that poor districts get less tax money, other than by not living in those districts? How many letters or email or phone calls have YOU made to your local representatives asking them to create a huge pot for all of the school district tax dollars to go in to and then distribute them evenly across all schools? My guess is that there are more voters who should support the idea of spreading out all school tax dollars evenly across all districts. What is preventing them from banding together to get something like that passed?
You again confuse an unwillingness to require, under penalty of incarceration, all of America to open up their wallets to redistribute wealth with not giving a damn. You can care without feeling a need to burden all of society with the problems of the lower socioeconomic class. There are other things that can be done (job training, etc) that do not include simply throwing money at the problem, hoping that will magically fix it. Oh wait...I am just another right leaning guy who isn't educated enough to agree with your twisted view of "justice."
Liberals oppose giving poor children vouchers to go to private schools. Again, just because you liberals disagree with conservative policies doesn't mean they are "unChristian" policies.
