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

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

21 Sep 2011, 8:11 am

Was Jesus a capitalist?

You'd be surprised at the stuff you can find by just googling that question:

Quote:
Despite the best efforts of liberal evangelicals like Jim Wallis to turn Jesus into a flaming socialist, his own words tell a different story. In fact, the stories that Jesus told could have only come from a capitalist's capitalist.

For instance, in one of his most famous parables, the parable of the talents, Jesus commits a number of politically incorrect sins according to the worldview of Jim Wallis, who unfortunately is trying to recast Jesus in his own image as the Karl Marx of Christendom.

In the parable of the talents, Jesus refers to a man who called his servants together and "entrusted to them his property." Hold it right there! It was his own property! He owned the means of production — it did not belong to the community at large! The capital used in economic exchange was in private hands! And what he does with his wealth is clearly nobody's business but his own.

How can this be? This all makes the hero in Jesus' tale a criminal in Wallis' fevered imagination, guilty of greed and exploitation, and of grave offenses against an enlightened social order.

Further, the businessman distributed the talents "to each according to his ability." Sin number two. According to Wallis, Jesus should have had this man distribute his resources "to each according to his need." He should not be entrusting money to people based on ability, but rather should be extracting it from them based on ability. After all, in Wallis' world it is "from each according to his ability." Jesus turns that completely on its head by giving "to each according to his ability." Perhaps Rev. Wallis needs a remedial grammar lesson on prepositions.

Even worse, the enterprise run by the main figure in Jesus' story is a meritocracy from start to finish. Responsibility is awarded based on ability, not on some kind of ethnic or economic quota system. And promotion likewise is based squarely on achievement. The man with five talents earned five more, and was given more responsibility and authority as a result. Likewise with the servant who took two talents and turned it into two more.

There is not a breath here in this story of the importance of equality of outcome. In fact, quite the reverse. Jesus had no intention of having everyone wind up at the same level of income, authority or responsibility. This businessman believed in equality of opportunity but not in equality of result. Outcome was not dictated by government regulation but rather determined by individual initiative and skill.

Accountability in this story does not rest with some government agency. Rather it remains in private hands, with the entrepreneur who called his servants together upon his return and "settled accounts."

Jesus' businessman would surely agree with the Founders who said that one of our inalienable rights is the "pursuit of happiness." Notice that nowhere did they guarantee the achievement of happiness. The political structure, in their view, is there to create circumstances under which each of us, with minimal government interference, can pursue happiness based on ability, hard work, good judgment, perseverance, education, training and ambition, all of which will vary significantly from one individual to the next.

And last but not least, when the master returns and finds that one of his servants has buried the money in his back yard rather than investing it, he calls him "wicked and slothful." And rather than taking money from the productive workers and giving it out of compassion to this man in the form of welfare, he takes the one talent he buried and awarded it to the most productive member of his team.

Jesus' businessman had no intention of rewarding or subsidizing irresponsibility. The lazy servant had no right to anything he wasn't willing to work for.

So let's sum up. In this story, capital is in private hands. The owner of the capital is free to invest it as he chooses, and to entrust his private resources to anyone he chooses. Economic gain comes through investment, risk-taking and smart choices. The enterprise is based on ability and there is no quota system of any kind in place. Achievement rather than mere effort is rewarded. Accountability rests in the hands of private enterprise rather than in the hands of government. Laziness is punished rather than rewarded, and resources are not involuntarily transferred from the producers to the non-producers but the other way round.

Bottom line: Jesus, as much as Wallis will hate to admit it, had capitalism in his DNA.

© Bryan Fischer

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/100517


_________________
.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Sep 2011, 11:50 am

No. Capitalism is an economic system that can exist in several religious contexts or no religious context at all. It is private ownership of the means of production which consists of physical capital and private acquisition of financial capital to purchase physical capital.

The only requiremet for capitalism is a firm system of law the recognizes property rights.

ruveyn



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Sep 2011, 12:18 pm

Of course not. Capitalism is just a system that works better than a system of stealing from everyone for the good of the State.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,790
Location: Stendec

21 Sep 2011, 12:37 pm

Not at all. When the Great Empires of the Ancient World (BCE) weren't trying to wipe each other out of existence, their merchants were engaging in trade for profit.

If considered for it's alleged historical content, even the Bible mentions Merchants in Proverbs 31:14, Song of Solomon 3:6, Ezekiel 27:3, and Hosea 12:7. all of which predate the birth of Jesus by at least 400 years.

Capitalism is not a Christian invention.


_________________
 
I have no love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


InfinityMinusInfinity
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 11

21 Sep 2011, 4:02 pm

The relationship between Christianity and any material monetary structure is a politically convenient construct.

"Equality of opportunity" was certainly not present in the parable! That parable's focus is on serving God with what you have. Sure, the one with more talents gets more cities, but I don't see that as important. The talented people do tend to get the glory...

While Jesus didn't endorse socialism, he denied the capitalistic idea that those who were rich "deserved" or "earned" it (it was commonly believed at the time that the rich were that way because they were "more blessed" by God), and said that it is difficult for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God, because their money comes before God.

Jesus is neither capitalist nor socialist - his focus was spiritual, not material.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Sep 2011, 4:51 pm

Fnord wrote:
Not at all. When the Great Empires of the Ancient World (BCE) weren't trying to wipe each other out of existence, their merchants were engaging in trade for profit.

If considered for it's alleged historical content, even the Bible mentions Merchants in Proverbs 31:14, Song of Solomon 3:6, Ezekiel 27:3, and Hosea 12:7. all of which predate the birth of Jesus by at least 400 years.

Capitalism is not a Christian invention.


Yeah. Capitalism is just a default economic system that works fairly well, not a religious mandate but merely what should be common sense. When others complain about some having more than them, it sounds to me like an attempt at justifying theft. Only in the manner that the Bible says "do not steal" can it be said that the Bible says anything regarding the various shades of capitalism versus the various shades of communism.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Sep 2011, 4:56 pm

No it turns out that when they say you are supposed to love your neighbor, they mean with your works.

Acts 4:32-35 ESV

Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.

Acts 2:44-45 ESV

And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.

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.”

2 Corinthians 8:13-15 ESV

For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.”


Luke 6:20-24 ESV

And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets. “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.


1 John 3:17 ESV

But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?

Ephesians 4:28 ESV

Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.


Galatians 6:2 ESV

Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Proverbs 1:13-17 ESV

We shall find all precious goods, we shall fill our houses with plunder; throw in your lot among us; we will all have one purse”— my son, do not walk in the way with them; hold back your foot from their paths, for their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed blood. For in vain is a net spread in the sight of any bird,

Deuteronomy 23:24-25 ESV

“If you go into your neighbor's vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes, as many as you wish, but you shall not put any in your bag. If you go into your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbor's standing grain.

Galatians 5:14 ESV

For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Sep 2011, 5:29 pm

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.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Sep 2011, 5:50 pm

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.


And it'll be as easy for that rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven as it is for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle.

But that's ok, because he got his reward in this life.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Sep 2011, 7:41 pm

The trouble with Capitalism is that it has it has no history of ever working for the benefit of society as a whole. It is the economic and social system in which the means of production are private owned; production, pricing of goods and services and the distribution of income and wealth are determined through a market economy. Problems arise for the population as a whole if the private owners of production, labour, and services abuse their position knowing that demand for what they own can generate a disproportionate price at the expense of the consumer. For example the controllers of a labour supply that mines coal, might wield disproportionate power, knowing when coal is in demand by the community to heat their homes or fuel their power stations, then a disproportionately high price can be demanded for the labour.
Similarly a pharmaceutical company might demand an unfair price for lifesaving drugs, putting profit before humanity. If a company is operating with little or no competition within a capitalist regime, it is able to reduce the supply of its product or service. Due to the economics of limited supply and a greater demand this will raise prices, in spite of there being a general ability to meet all demand. This could for example occur in the housing market, where a shortage of housing significantly raises prices.
In the western world we do not experience true free market capitalism, because the state has sought to intervene, limiting for example the power of those that control the supply of labour i.e.: the workers and their unions, but not especially limiting the power of the private owners of capital. Thus in the “Capitalist” World we experience a hybrid type of capitalism where corporations are largely to free to operate in competition with each other but where the state has actually intervened in the markets to protect and advance interests of big business. This system has much in common with “State Capitalism," which is far removed from the ideals of true capitalism.

There has been a steady widening of the gap between the rich and the poor, because individuals within society do not receive what they are necessarily worth to the community, but some receive the income that they can extract. Therefore the chief executive of a corporation may not be as valuable to the community as a Prime Minister, yet the chief executive may receive a higher salary, and a cleaner of a hospital may be more valuable to the community than the owner of tobacco company, but the cleaner is paid less.


Social Darwinism and Capitalism go so well together.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Sep 2011, 7:56 pm

Capitalism is high on the list of "least worst".

It's not the capitalism that is the problem - it's unchecked robber barons and the resulting sequestration of wealth.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Sep 2011, 8:03 pm

blauSamstag 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.”


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.


And it'll be as easy for that rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven as it is for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle.

But that's ok, because he got his reward in this life.


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.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Sep 2011, 8:06 pm

I would have to disagree I am a anti-Capitalist but I am not a communist I am against that Idea to.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Sep 2011, 9:21 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
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?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Sep 2011, 9:33 pm

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.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Sep 2011, 9:43 pm

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.