Is capitalism a subset of Christianity?

Page 2 of 2 [ 25 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

21 Sep 2011, 9:52 pm

blauSamstag wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

blauSamstag wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Yes, and you would have confused the words "difficult" with "impossible", considering the principle of sola scriptura and Proverbs 30:8-9.

A person may have their reward in this life and still not be unsaved, necessarily, but also be least for in life they were greatest. Salvation is dependent upon one's acceptance of Christ as their savior and Lord, not upon the numerical value of their bank account or lack thereof.

So you're a believer in faith without works?

So you're a believer in putting words in people's mouths?

A person can be financially responsible and be charitable simultaneously, it's not either or.

When i was a religious person, I believed that salvation is predicated by works rather than by faith.

It's an impasse I was at with the born-again set. I knew too many people who claimed to have accepted Jesus as their personal savior but did not seem to be familiar with anything he ever did or said. Or certainly didn't emulate any of it.

This led to my perception that some "christians" act as though they have found a loophole in the bible that allows them to be total jerkwads without guilt.

Not that I'm accusing you of that.

Works are only a product of faith displaying the possibility that it exists, although people can produce works without faith, but anyway what does this have to do with people quote-mining the Bible to support either capitalism or communism?

blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

21 Sep 2011, 11:36 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Nothing, I guess. But the religious version of me - 20 years ago - would have argued that a man with no faith who has done good works may more easily find his way into the kingdom of heaven than a man who has faith but has behaved in a selfish and despicable way.

That whole thing explained between Matthew 7:15 and 7:23.

depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Sep 2011, 9:15 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

blauSamstag wrote:

Matthew 19:21 ESV

Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

The Roman Empire was capitalistic in nature, so people had the option of owning possessions and selling them. The action that Jesus was saying there was a test to see if the rich man who claimed to have perfectly followed the Law would value more his earthly possessions than his soul. The test for the rich man is not a mandate of socialism since it was something allowing a voluntary response, and neither is the reference to the economic system of the Romans a mandate for capitalism.

Rome was very commercial but not capitalistic. Property was not secure from arbitrary seizure by whoever happened to be in power. Many of the corrupt emperors forced property owners to cede property to the State or sell it a a very low price. Calligua, for example, was notorious for seizing property from members of the ruling class (the patricians).

In Rome wealth was looted more than it was produced.

After the collapse of the Republic much of the labor was slave labor.

ruveyn

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

22 Sep 2011, 2:45 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

I think it was more feudalistic than capitalistic. The Romans were dependent upon tributes and slaves from captured nations. They weren't really out to set up free markets.

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

22 Sep 2011, 3:13 pm

pandabear wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

I think it was more feudalistic than capitalistic. The Romans were dependent upon tributes and slaves from captured nations. They weren't really out to set up free markets.

Rome was Imperialist they used captured people to build an make things ect the working.

force was manily slaves they also used them for entertainment by no means where they.

commerical or capitalistic they where Imperialists.

AKA The Devil's Advocate

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Sep 2011, 3:24 pm

ruveyn wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

blauSamstag wrote:

Matthew 19:21 ESV

Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

There were certainly less rights of individuals compared to modern times and more abuses of power were common then, however property ownership was still allowed although government based theft still occurred. At the least, ancient Rome was yet more capitalistic than 20th China or the Soviet Union before its collapse.

donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran