My definition was a bit crude. Still its like, there's the tribal no economy hunting, gathering and distributing goods and services equally amongst people, which calls on people being generous, non-greedy and non-violent. Or have a system in place where people QUALIFY for the goods and services through doing work tasks so the system provides them that sustenance. Can you really trust either the tribal or economic structure to be greed-free? I just assumed for myself that economics as it exists, while not morally pure it at least takes away a bit of savagery. But I guess white collar savages arent that much different than axe wielding savages. You can write off some charitable donations and get it back, but thats a zero-sum kinda thing. Something that REWARDS helping the less fortunate would be great. Unfortunately just being a "great man" and humanitarian isnt enough honor. It has to help their bottom line dollar amount. So thats a challenge. Interesting you brought up the CIGNA health insurance thread. I had another big long winded writeup of how a lot of rich people simply werent ever brought up around poor people, or have limited contact with the poor to even COMPREHEND what goes on in their livelihoods. To see that not all blame lies with the poor themselves. Some of the more upper crust elitist, snooty wealthy people wont dare do that cuz they'd rather remain safe in their protective bubble of negative stereotypes and generalizations of poor people. Thats not to say rich people dont care cuz I think most people understand the "starving kids in Africa" thing. The REAL disadvantaged out there like the handicapped, special needs children, natural disaster victims, etc. Money is a great shield from problems, but I dont think they know how thin the line is between success and struggle. Finally answering the simple thread question of How are there so many christian capitalists? I think religion overall some of it is about solving problems, some of its avoidence of problems turning the other cheek, some of it is suppression of problems by the power of Jesus. A little more can be about CONFRONTING problems, "ethical empowerment". The ones that do are always the militant terrorist sects bombing instead of helping. Also in christianity its about protecting and upholding the scripture, fortifying it. So its a "keep it as-is", what we got is what we need thing. Traditional=old world sometimes. Liberal thinking goes against the sanctity of christianity that way cuz its always about changing things. Anyways, on to the summer league box scores...
While taxation has been accepted and should be accepted, you cannot escape the logical conclusion of raising taxes to pay for these things. The logical conclusion that it is giving to the poor under the penalty of incarceration. (ie...you don't pay the taxes for this and you go to jail. I seriously doubt that Jesus would have been ok with that. The Bible speaks frequently about giving to the poor voluntarily. It is about goodness of heart and a desire to do God's will to help your fellow man. Forcing it does not get to what the teachings of Jesus says (giving alms voluntarily and without hope of ancillary gain). There is a world of difference between giving somebody a fish and teaching them to fish.
God gives "gifts" to everyone. Some people's gift is making money. If a wealthy capitalist is a practicing christian, he/she will realize the great gift that has been given to them and give generously back to God's kingdom in one way or another. From a christian standpoint, there is nothing wrong with making lots of money unless you put money before God.
Refman, aren't you a Catholic? I think your Texas conservatism and the prevailing southern Christianity is effecting your Catholicism. See the post above about the Pope and social justice. Perhap read an encyclical or two on social justice.
Depends on how you make the money right? Also, we cannot decide whether God has given us that gift. We can't even tell if the devil is ocmpelling us to believe that we have this "gift" and must exercise it. That's a very radical way to think abotu it, but in essence, we are incapable of determining if God has, for example, given us the ability to manipulate stock market prices. If the money is made in a non-Christian way, then wouldn't the money be tainted? I know that in Islam certain money is tainted. For example, money you make from selling alcohol cannot go towards charity. Don't if, or to what extent, that kind of thing exist in Christianity.
The New Testament moves from the black-and-white rules of the Old Testament to matters of the heart....Jesus would say: [paraphrase] "you've heard it said, thou shalt not murder...but i tell you, if you're harboring hatred in your heart for someone, you are already a murderer." He moved past the action....and went deeper....to the heart. He talked very specifically about money being an impediment for people....not that money, itself, was evil....but that if it (or anything else) was before your love for God and other people....if you were selfish with it....that it would not go well for you. He talked about how worthless and unwise it was to build your life on those things that can fall away...that rust...or can be lost. It's ultimately the LOVE of money that he calls evil. I've seen it be that...and I've also seen it be a tool for showing love...assisting in the rebuilding of other peoples' lives. So you won't see a lot of "if this, then that" hard and fast rules coming from Jesus. You see more of that from the letters of Peter and mostly Paul that circulated the early Church. Jesus turned water into wine...while there are comments from throughout the Bible about remaining sober, I find no outright condemnation of alcohol. In fact, in a letter from one church leader (Paul) to another (Timothy), he urges him to drink some wine to help him deal with a stomach issue. Having said that....if alcohol is an impediment for you, you should avoid it....if it messes up your relationship with God and with others, you should avoid it. If you're with someone who is affected by it, you should avoid it then as well...if you drinking it around someone who would struggle with that causes a problem, then stop, because it could hurt that other person. And of course there are certain things that cause such harm to people that they should be avoided outright...no matter their lack of literal mention in the Bible. This is the freedom of grace that I find in Jesus. Not held fast to letter of the law. Recognizing that we all stumble...we're all imperfect. And finding transformation coming from God.
Spot on; I saw a piece once that characterized some of the greatest heroes of the Bible... Noah was a drunk Abraham was a codger Timothy was just a kid Isaac was a daydreamer Jacob was a liar Joseph was unworthy Moses was not articulate Gideon was gripped by fear Nehemiah was impoverished Samson was a womanizer Rahab was a harlot Elijah was suicidal Isaiah was a nudist (my particular favorite) Thomas was full of doubt Jonah rejected God Job was bad with money Peter denied Christ Martha was a worrier Zacchaeus was despised Paul was too religoius and Lazarus was DEAD Nevertheless, God used all of these imperfect people in mighty ways. They were not perfect, nor were they ever perfected. God spoke to their heart and they acted faithfully when it really mattered.
I have but one thing to say about this topic: When Zacchaeus became a Christian, he gave back four times all of the taxes that he had taken by force. (And half of everything else he had.)
he promised to give back what he stole on top of the taxes he collected, that's how tax collectors got paid.
exactly right...he didn't pay back 4x the taxes...Jesus said you should pay your taxes. and Paul backed it up saying you should obey the law of the land. tax collectors got rich by taking money in excess of what was owed the government....basically telling the masses they owed x+1 when they really just owed x....and keeping the +1. it's that excess he multiplied and returned.
Goes without saying, obviously there was SOME form of monetary system going on in the first place for Jesus to preach morality on. He had plenty of opportunity and time to say change the entire system to something more ethical and charitable, but he seemingly didnt. Jesus also didnt advocate straying further away from obligation to help the less fortunate with a self-oppurtunist top heavy kill the bottom feeders system either. But Christians can still be justified in their defense of capitalism cuz in a sense he didnt outright talk economics. Jesus separating church and state? Doubtful. But I'm sure he wants everyone to keep in mind the christian principles in whatever form of commerce we engage in. Interpreting the christian constitution, I like it! Its been a while for me An aside...seeking wealth is a most obvious form of greed. But there's many other areas in life, well almost anything, where its Better Me Than Them if its good, Better Them Than Me if its bad. If there's only 1 spot to get accepted into a presitigious school and, and its between my child and 3 other family's children, I want MY child there. And I'm sure 97% would feel the same. Would it then be immoral and unethical to even have an elite educational institute to begin with? Cuz its causes an imbalance in haves and have nots?
"Texas conservatism." "prevailing southern Chistianity." Catholic means blindly following the Pope. Could you throw in a few more generalities and stereotypes? Ponder for a moment whether you might be guilty of prejudice and assumptions about people based on few details. You know...the same type of stuff that you decry about some conservatives. The target doesn't have to be a minority for it to be offensive.
I suppose you could be what is called a cafeteria Catholic, choosing to follow American conservatives on social justice, but the Church on abortion or other matters. Hey to each his own. Stand up proudly for your beliefs. No need to deny them by claiming to be ideological free or devoid of employing categories to comprehend the world or poltics. Hey I'm sure you are a nice guy and we could share a beer if you didn't get too mad at this poor liberal.
Interesting thread and to throw in my two cents I think it should be understood that Socialism doesn't mean a faceless government entity in opposition to the people but an entity that is the people. For that matter in true Communisn there is no government. The ultimate goal of both Capitalism and Socialism is the most efficient distribution of resources that helps out the most people the difference is how to get to that state. One is primarily individualistic while the othere is primarily collective. Christianity and many other religions seem to focus more on the collective with the idea that the larger group is more important than the individual, for example love thy brother, under that it seems to me that Christianity applied to economics would be more in line with Socialism where economic decisions where made as a group than by the individual If I recall correctly the early Christian communities and even ones like the Amish are essentially run as communes. In the end though I don't think we can apply modern economic theories to Christianity and vice versa given how different the economics during Jesus' time was.
glynch, your last couple of posts illustrates why I usually stay out of "religious threads." I just don't think it's right to question someone else's faith, or try to slice and dice it... micro-analyze it. My wife is a "non-practicing Catholic," who's uncle, a man I've had in my house many, many times, and have been hosted by his order in Philadelphia (if that's the right word. they put us up for a few days and couldn't have been nicer), is a semi-retired priest. Something tells me they never really retire. He's been at it well over 50 years. While my wife may be "non-practicing," the one or two times a year that she goes to mass with her sister has shown me that she's forgotten nothing. Who am I to question her, or anyone else? Where I have a problem is when religion intersects with the political realm. In this country, that isn't intended to happen, and shouldn't, IMO. One of the reasons I have so much respect for Max is that, although very religious himself, he feels the same way. As an agnostic, I can't ask for fairer than that from a religious person. As a liberal, I don't think anything is gained by attacking someone else's faith. We can all co-exist and should. That's one of the great things about this country, flaws and all. While it may be difficult in practice, we live where, in theory, we can all get along. We should at least try.
Ok I am ready for the flames which are to follow this. Take away the religious aspect away and talk about Jesus a a human being, political leader, philospher and revolutionary than his career was no short of failure. Of the 12 people that made up his inner circle, each one of them denounced him as their leader before his death. Furthermore, Jesus never ruled over a country or nation, never made decisions about how to run the affairs of a large population of people. By that I mean practical methods not just social ideas of loving and sharing with each other. That isn't something that will make you want to get up 5 in the moring, get dressed and go to work in your respective field whether its working in an office or doing the dirty works of society and cleaning the sewers. This is the sole reason why all forms of socialism have utterly failed, for it takes away incentive to perform all the hard work and back breaking labor that is required to keep civilization going. Without this incentive, we would all just be outright slaves (to keep an ordered society) or become lawless bandits and pilagers. So capitalism as loathesome as it may be to the religious and divine, it is the only form of economic structure that provides individuals with realistic oppurtunity to be rewarded for playing his part in an ordered society. Oh I still love Jesus.
Under that reasoning Martin Luther King could be considered a failure, Sakyamuni (the Buddha) and many others. While Jesus in his lifetime didn't accomplish much his legacy certain made a huge impact far beyond those he reached while alive.
I think he meant aside from Jesus religious impact, by our standards of success ie career, longevity, power and wealth Jesus would be viewed as unsuccessful... or I could be wrong?
