Christianity and Capitalism

[Gerioke]

What sysem do quakers adhere to? I have always admired the way they keep life simple.

[MrSealedEternal]

What sysem do quakers adhere to? I have always admired the way they keep life simple.

Me too.

Mrs. SE

[Smalcald]

I don't think Quakers do any particular system today. The ones I know are big peace activists, I think they had some of the human shield types in Iraq.

Do you mean Mennonites or Huderites? Huderites are the most fascinating, they practice total communal living, and all property is held in common as part of the collective. They are really the only long-term successful communes in the US. No one is in need, all share what they have in common, and all must work with their hands, just like in Acts.

[Leonard]

I'd like to add that, of the two of us Leonard, who has read "Wealth of Nations?" You didn't counter a single thing I said. Why? Because you can't, you haven't read the original work. A man can work and keep his own property under almost any economic system (such as he did prior to capitalism). The core element of Capitalism is humanism, there is no escaping this. I dare you to prove me wrong by using Adam Smith's workings.

I didn't answer anything about Adam Smith or Wealth of Nations because we weren't discussing them; do pay attention old boy!

Do you imagine that Adam Smith 'invented' Capitalism? I quoted from the biblical text, among the prophets ca. 800 BC; nearly 3,000 years BEFORE Adam Smith. The only reason I can think you brought Adam Smith up is because either 1: You are quite confused as to the topic under discussion, or 2: You are misdirecting, practicing avoidance, waving a red herring, and deliberately adumbrating because you see you are on the losing side of this debate.

Why should I answer Adam Smith? None of my argument is contingent on him; and in fact in all my years of writing I think I have only mentioned Adam Smith one time; and that was in an academic paper in the history of Western Philosophy: He earned a FOOTNOTE! No; our discussion had nothing to do with Adam Smith, and EVERYTHING to do with Scripture.

And it is no use Gerioke quoting Scriptures that show unregenerate man will abuse wealth; obviously this occurs no matter what governmental or economic system unregenerate people live under. The only statements in Scripture we have from God regarding private ownership of means of production, are affirmative and supportive in nature.

[apothanein kerdos]

I didn't answer anything about Adam Smith or Wealth of Nations because we weren't discussing them; do pay attention old boy!

That's the backbone of the Capitalists theory....

Do you imagine that Adam Smith 'invented' Capitalism? blink.gif I quoted from the biblical text, among the prophets ca. 800 BC; nearly 3,000 years BEFORE Adam Smith.

Do you ignore Psalm 82:3, Proverbs 21:13, Jeremiah 22:16, Psalm 41:1, Proverbs 19:17, Galatians 2:10, James 2:5, and Isaiah 41:17 that speak of how Christians AND the government are to take care of the poor? You haven't used any scripture, and the only thing I could think you could possibly use is Isaiah 36:16 -

'Do not listen to Hezekiah,' for thus says the king of Assyria, 'Make your peace with me and come out to me, and eat each of his vine and each of his fig tree and drink each of the waters of his own cistern,

Is that the passage you're using?

The only reason I can think you brought Adam Smith up is because either 1: You are quite confused as to the topic under discussion, or 2: You are misdirecting, practicing avoidance, waving a red herring, and deliberately adumbrating because you see you are on the losing side of this debate.

No.....Adam Smith is the founder of modern Capitalism. You can't discuss Capitalism without discussing Adam Smith.

Why should I answer Adam Smith?

Because you're discussing Capitalism. Have you even read Wealth of Nations or studied the history of Capitalism?

No; our discussion had nothing to do with Adam Smith, and EVERYTHING to do with Scripture.

Yeah, I agree, it's Adam Smith (Capitalism) vs. Scripture.

[MrSealedEternal]

I don't think Quakers do any particular system today. The ones I know are big peace activists, I think they had some of the human shield types in Iraq.

Do you mean Mennonites or Huderites? Huderites are the most fascinating, they practice total communal living, and all property is held in common as part of the collective. They are really the only long-term successful communes in the US. No one is in need, all share what they have in common, and all must work with their hands, just like in Acts.

I was thinking more along the lines of Amish Mennonites, but I figured it quite possible with Gerioke being in Nova Scotia, that he might of meant something similar. Wasn't sure though. I have never even heard of Huderites yet. That's news to me...

Thanks,

Mrs. SE

Edited January 7, 2006 by Mr*MrsSealedEternal

[Guest Spirit of God]

Christianity and Capitalism, are they compatible?

Christianity belongs to Christ. Christ is the King of the kingdom to come. Nothing of this world is compatible with Christ. When the devil who loves the things of this world, that he has created by worshiping the works of his hands, is put away then the real power that God intended for those who love him will be known by those who survive.

Spirit of God

[Gerioke]

I don't think Quakers do any particular system today. The ones I know are big peace activists, I think they had some of the human shield types in Iraq.

Do you mean Mennonites or Huderites? Huderites are the most fascinating, they practice total communal living, and all property is held in common as part of the collective. They are really the only long-term successful communes in the US. No one is in need, all share what they have in common, and all must work with their hands, just like in Acts.

I was thinking more along the lines of Amish Mennonites, but I figured it quite possible with Gerioke being in Nova Scotia, that he might of meant something similar. Wasn't sure though. I have never even heard of Huderites yet. That's news to me...

Thanks,

Mrs. SE

I'm not from Nova Scotia. I merely live here now. I did spend a couple of years in Manioba, where my mom is from. The mennonites here are just like everybody else. My mom comes from a mennonite family. The Hudderites were more like Amish people(who I was acually referring to). In Ontario, the mennonites and Hudderites are similar to Amish people. I thought quakers were Amish as well. Beg your pardon.

Anyways, I would gladly join one of those Amish communities and give up all my modern conveniences.

[Leonard]

The passage I am referring to is in Micah, if memory serves (always a dicey proposition in my superannuation....).

I read Wealth of Nations and a great many other economic works about 20 years ago. Frankly Adam Smith is soooo boring, that if there is any of the love of God in you, if there is yet any vestige of Christian Charity....you won't make me go back and read him again! The Austrian School is much more fun reading, AND THEY'RE NOT FUN!!!!

Look, Adam Smith represents a secularist approach to Capitalism. So what? Should we toss Capitalism out because some secular fellow wrote something about it? I've got an important news flash for you here: SECULAR PEOPLE HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT THE BIBLE TOO! I guess we need to throw the Bible out now?

It is beyond me how you can think Adam Smith has any particular bearing on our subject. We are talking about what God's word says the economic order ought to look like. He favors private ownership of means of production ("Capitalism"), as opposed to Communism ("Come let us share a common bag...." Proverbs chapter 1).

Adam Smith? I might as well bring up Shaftesbury's Fable of the Bees at this point. Yes, I realize it has nothing to do with our discussion at all, but it IS about economics, it IS as germane to the topic as Adam Smith, and it proves that I KNOW HOW TO OBFUSCATE TOO!

You used the following references: "Do you ignore Psalm 82:3, Proverbs 21:13, Jeremiah 22:16, Psalm 41:1, Proverbs 19:17, Galatians 2:10, James 2:5, and Isaiah 41:17 that speak of how Christians AND the government are to take care of the poor?"

First, I cannot find how this applies to '....AND the government....', but I have no particular objection to a governmentally led program to help the poor. Unfortunately because governments are so unutterably incompetent, these efforts are simply not effective. Secondarily, each and every one of these Scriptures simply enjoins taking care of the poor. That is what God's Capitalism DOES, my good fellow. These Scriptures cannot be taken either to favor Capitalism, or Communism. You still seem very confused as to subject matter.

Gerioke: If the famous widow and EVERYONE ELSE had just been doled out their daily bread, and didn't expend any effort in its procurement (as under a Communist economy can be done--"They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work"), then there would have been no particular nobility in her 'giving' at the Temple. That she GAVE something which was HERS (private property) ennobles her act. The system you espouse takes from her even this small ability to give. I think that is shameful! Do you remember the pericope toward the end of David's life, where he numbered the people, and so God unleashed a destroying angel on the nation? As David went to the threshing floor of Arauna to offer a sacrifice, Arauna--seeing the fearful heavenly apparition--offers the oxen to David for sacrifice, but David demands to pay for them: "I will not offer to the Lord a sacrifice which cost me nothing...." In just the same way, if these '2 mites' belonged to EVERYBODY, then they were not the poor widow's. Her act loses all its great lode of meaning, unless the two mites were HERS!!!

Edited January 7, 2006 by Leonard

[Gerioke]

The passage I am referring to is in Micah, if memory serves (always a dicey proposition in my superannuation....).

I read Wealth of Nations and a great many other economic works about 20 years ago. Frankly Adam Smith is soooo boring, that if there is any of the love of God in you, if there is yet any vestige of Christian Charity....you won't make me go back and read him again! The Austrian School is much more fun reading, AND THEY'RE NOT FUN!!!!

Look, Adam Smith represents a secularist approach to Capitalism. So what? Should we toss Capitalism out because some secular fellow wrote something about it? I've got an important news flash for you here: SECULAR PEOPLE HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT THE BIBLE TOO! I guess we need to throw the Bible out now?

It is beyond me how you can think Adam Smith has any particular bearing on our subject. We are talking about what God's word says the economic order ought to look like. He favors private ownership of means of production ("Capitalism"), as opposed to Communism ("Come let us share a common bag...." Proverbs chapter 1).

Adam Smith? I might as well bring up Shaftesbury's Fable of the Bees at this point. Yes, I realize it has nothing to do with our discussion at all, but it IS about economics, it IS as germane to the topic as Adam Smith, and it proves that I KNOW HOW TO OBFUSCATE TOO!

You used the following references: "Do you ignore Psalm 82:3, Proverbs 21:13, Jeremiah 22:16, Psalm 41:1, Proverbs 19:17, Galatians 2:10, James 2:5, and Isaiah 41:17 that speak of how Christians AND the government are to take care of the poor?"

First, I cannot find how this applies to '....AND the government....', but I have no particular objection to a governmentally led program to help the poor. Unfortunately because governments are so unutterably incompetent, these efforts are simply not effective. Secondarily, each and every one of these Scriptures simply enjoins taking care of the poor. That is what God's Capitalism DOES, my good fellow. These Scriptures cannot be taken either to favor Capitalism, or Communism. You still seem very confused as to subject matter.

Gerioke: If the famous widow and EVERYONE ELSE had just been doled out their daily bread, and didn't expend any effort in its procurement (as under a Communist economy can be done--"They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work"), then there would have been no particular nobility in her 'giving' at the Temple. That she GAVE something which was HERS (private property) ennobles her act. The system you espouse takes from her even this small ability to give. I think that is shameful! Do you remember the pericope toward the end of David's life, where he numbered the people, and so God unleashed a destroying angel on the nation? As David went to the threshing floor of Arauna to offer a sacrifice, Arauna--seeing the fearful heavenly apparition--offers the oxen to David for sacrifice, but David demands to pay for them: "I will not offer to the Lord a sacrifice which cost me nothing...." In just the same way, if these '2 mites' belonged to EVERYBODY, then they were not the poor widow's. Her act loses all its great lode of meaning, unless the two mites were HERS!!!

David didn't gouge everybody in the kingdom with high prices to make a profit. He was fair. Capitalism doesn't look after the best interests of others. Capitalism is doing what is profiable for me and hang the little guy.