Christ as a capitalist

[Mr. Perfect]

I will leave it to everyone else to cite all the instances of Jesus talking about giving to the poor. Helping them out of poverty.

How do you do it? Let a leftist tell you.

http://www.nationalreview.com/feed/3540 ... -pollowitz

“Aid is just a stop-gap. Commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid.

“In dealing with poverty here and around the world, welfare and foreign aid are a Band-Aid. Free enterprise is a cure.

“Entrepreneurship is the most sure way of development.”

This is what we see today. The socialism of central banking/subprime morgages/Freddie Fannie and now STPN have plunged us into a death swirl of poverty and state insolvency, leading to human suffering not seen in the developed world in half a century.

I saw it first hand myself when in the 1970's Democrat socialism nearly decimated my family unto homelessness, and Ronald Reagan's free market gave us prosperity without bound. As a result I pledged destuction unto Democrat Liberals and fealty to Reagan's beloved Republican Party unto the 7th generation.

End poverty, end socialism.

[manolo]

I saw it first hand myself when in the 1970's Democrat socialism nearly decimated my family unto homelessness.....

Mr P,

Sorry to hear that you had it hard. Personal experience often forms strong views.

Alex.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Jesus did not talk about helping people out of poverty. His emphasis was on selfless giving, rejecting materialism & security, and relying on God rather than self. He directly stated the poor will be with us always; giving was never about ameliorating poverty.

Remember the apostles were successful businessmen, and Jesus demanded they abandon their businesses and go forth barefoot to preach the gospel without accepting anything except the day's food and shelter. The emphasis was not on helping the poor, but on self-denial and eliminating self-reliance.

The need to eliminate self-reliance and to depend entirely upon God was a clear objective throughout the OT & NT. Personally, I fail at this but I am trying to improve.

[Ibrahim]

Jesus did not talk about helping people out of poverty. His emphasis was on selfless giving, rejecting materialism & security, and relying on God rather than self. He directly stated the poor will be with us always; giving was never about ameliorating poverty.

Remember the apostles were successful businessmen, and Jesus demanded they abandon their businesses and go forth barefoot to preach the gospel without accepting anything except the day's food and shelter. The emphasis was not on helping the poor, but on self-denial and eliminating self-reliance.

The need to eliminate self-reliance and to depend entirely upon God was a clear objective throughout the OT & NT. Personally, I fail at this but I am trying to improve.

"Prosperity Gospel," and any kind of Bourgeois Jesus just doesn't fly. You can easily read all four gospels in one sitting, and once you do you can't seriously reach any other conclusion than the one you've written above. So I'm not sure who these people think they are fooling: themselves or God. Dicey proposition either way.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Jesus did not talk about helping people out of poverty. His emphasis was on selfless giving, rejecting materialism & security, and relying on God rather than self. He directly stated the poor will be with us always; giving was never about ameliorating poverty.

Remember the apostles were successful businessmen, and Jesus demanded they abandon their businesses and go forth barefoot to preach the gospel without accepting anything except the day's food and shelter. The emphasis was not on helping the poor, but on self-denial and eliminating self-reliance.

The need to eliminate self-reliance and to depend entirely upon God was a clear objective throughout the OT & NT. Personally, I fail at this but I am trying to improve.

"Prosperity Gospel," and any kind of Bourgeois Jesus just doesn't fly. You can easily read all four gospels in one sitting, and once you do you can't seriously reach any other conclusion than the one you've written above. So I'm not sure who these people think they are fooling: themselves or God. Dicey proposition either way.

True enough. Moreover, Jesus always emphasized giving and never loaning even at the zero interest required by Jewish law.

[Mr. Perfect]

Jesus did not talk about helping people out of poverty. His emphasis was on selfless giving, rejecting materialism & security, and relying on God rather than self.

giving was never about ameliorating poverty.

Cog dis in the extreme. On dozens of layers. Your very sig is rich in materialism. Giving to the poor is a materialistic act.

He directly stated the poor will be with us always;

As an aside. Surely you don't think that was something he was trying to encourage (the perpetuity of poverty).

Remember the apostles were successful businessmen, and Jesus demanded they abandon their businesses and go forth barefoot to preach the gospel without accepting anything except the day's food and shelter. The emphasis was not on helping the poor, but on self-denial and eliminating self-reliance.

Conflation of issues, preaching the gospel is not giving to the poor.

The need to eliminate self-reliance and to depend entirely upon God was a clear objective throughout the OT & NT. Personally, I fail at this but I am trying to improve.

Have you ever thought about why you fail at it.

When people receive alms from a human being is it coming from God or a human being.

[Mr. Perfect]

Mr P,

Sorry to hear that you had it hard. Personal experience often forms strong views.

Alex.

Indeed. The broad data is similar to my story as well. The socialist Democrat policy of the 1970's was a great burden on Americans, and the robust capitalism of Ronald Reagan was a welcome relief. That is why he was so popular with Americans relative to Jimmy Carter. In America people used to like prosperity.

[Nonc Hilaire]

There is no way anyone can honestly make the gospel message capitalist or self-interested.

The goal of life is not becoming economically comfortable and secure. Joseph had money for an inn, but basic comforts could not be purchased even by the Christ. God chose the abject poverty of His nativity for a reason. Join with the rest of Christianity in repenting for your selfishness instead of claiming your sin is righteousness.

Be guided by St. Francis. Even the Marvel Comics biography should prove enlightening.

[Mr. Perfect]

That's shifting the goalposts all around. The goal of life is a broad topic, and the poor is only a small portion of that. We're focusing on the poor.

I think the easiest way to address this is your statement that the gospel is about "rejecting materialism". Never mind that I can't even find that word in my Bible and it that it appears to have been made up by leftists after the fact, but by your statement then the poor would have actually accomplished this feat. They live a low material life.

And instead of Jesus saying 'look, they did it, become like the poor" instead he says "hey, give them some money". If they had achieved this rejection of materialism why was he commanding people to give them material things.

How do you reconcile this cognitive dissonance.

And, I am not a Catholic. I would rather follow Jesus than Francis, Jesus wanted the poor to have money. He wanted them to have material possessions. The best way to do that is with Capitalism. Capitalism is selfless, when a poor person gets rich I get nothing out of it but the happiness that they found success.

[Nonc Hilaire]

That's shifting the goalposts all around. The goal of life is a broad topic, and the poor is only a small portion of that. We're focusing on the poor.

I think the easiest way to address this is your statement that the gospel is about "rejecting materialism". Never mind that I can't even find that word in my Bible and it that it appears to have been made up by leftists after the fact, but by your statement then the poor would have actually accomplished this feat. They live a low material life.

And instead of Jesus saying 'look, they did it, become like the poor" instead he says "hey, give them some money". If they had achieved this rejection of materialism why was he commanding people to give them material things.

How do you reconcile this cognitive dissonance.

And, I am not a Catholic. I would rather follow Jesus than Francis, Jesus wanted the poor to have money. He wanted them to have material possessions. The best way to do that is with Capitalism. Capitalism is selfless, when a poor person gets rich I get nothing out of it but the happiness that they found success.

I'm not RC either. Francis is a universal exemplar. Read his biography and how he rejected all capitalism even though he was born to a successful capitalist family.

Jesus did not say say "give them some money". He said give them ALL your money, and depend on God alone for your next meal.

[Mr. Perfect]

No, he said that to the clergy. Perhaps you can provide a verse or something in support of all Christians "depending on God alone" for you next meal.

But again, why would we give any of our money to the poor if the idea was to not have money at all. Why wouldn't Jesus say "destroy your money and possessions" if the idea was that money and material things were bad. Why would Jesus give bad things to poor people. How do you resolve this cognitive dissonance.

Jesus is my universal exemplar. He wants the poor to have money.

[Simple Minded]

There is no way anyone can honestly make the gospel message capitalist or self-interested......

Nonc,

these are the types of statements that fascinate me to no end.
How to separate oneself from life,
the infinite number of interpretations of even a few basic words such as Christian, capitalist, self, charity, just, fair, etc.
Some see no alignment between capitalism and religion, others see voluntary transaction as the expression of morality itself.....

Give three people six sentences from the Bible, the Torah, or the Koran to read, and each will have a different interpretation. Three days or three months later, it is not surprising if none agree with their previous interpretation. Give them each the same 20 pages to read and it is endless arguments for decades.

Humans are amazing creatures. We have an infinite capacity for self-delusion.

All the humans I know who are charitable can be said to be charitable for selfish reasons. Being charitable makes them feel good, helping others gives one an enhanced sense of self-worth, they wish to live in a better neighborhood, city, or world, they desire a better life for their children, of perhaps they wish to earn a place in heaven/ avoid the wrath of God.

I guess only God will know if the devout are truly devout, or self-obsessed narcissists seeking eternal pleasure.

As someone once observed: "Man has never managed to create a god superior to himself." Probably also true that for most of us, thruout our lives, God is also the same age as us.....

"Who else but the self can be master of the self? With self well controlled, another master is hard to find."

Everyone has a unique set of experiences and perspectives, yet for some strange reason we desire and expect confirmation. Strange isn't it?

Woe be onto those who do not abandon their own sense of reason and judgment and unquestioningly accept ours...... as ........ gospel

[Mr. Perfect]

There is no way anyone can honestly make the gospel message capitalist or self-interested.

Sorry I missed this.

In all honesty I say capitalism is the best system in concert with Christ's message and Christianity is tremendously self interested. Nothing is more selfish than seeking ones own salvation.

[Ibrahim]

Jesus did not say say "give them some money". He said give them ALL your money, and depend on God alone for your next meal.

This is a common theme of religious devotion across a number of traditions. Aside from the Christian apostles and later monks and hermits there are Islamic dervishes, Buddhist monks, Hindu ascetics of various types, and Jains.

How to separate oneself from life,

I don't think its about separating yourself from life, but living a different kind of life by separating yourself from possessions and greed. Easier said than done, which is why relatively few do it.

[Simple Minded]

How to separate oneself from life,

I don't think its about separating yourself from life, but living a different kind of life by separating yourself from possessions and greed. Easier said than done, which is why relatively few do it.

The sense of detachment has always seemed relatively easy to me, especially once you realize your not gonna win any popularity contests.

amazing part is those who do not view your perspectives as confirmation of their own, often view you as an affront to their very sense of self.

[noddy]

its not like you could build a society out of monks/priest/hermits.

somewhere along the line this whole *avoiding* the dramas of humans inherit in that type of solution becomes problematic, which is hardly a fresh insight.

[Simple Minded]

its not like you could a society out of monks/priest/hermits.

not enough shagging for a start.

yeah, and when they start competing for the status of who is the most humble..... its gonna get REAL ugly.....

[Mr. Perfect]

Mm hmm. In the bible the clergy were fairly small relative to the population and were often involved in the trades of the time. The post biblical hermit monks of Europe were a turning of the page. Makes you wonder.

[Ibrahim]

its not like you could a society out of monks/priest/hermits.

not enough shagging for a start.

St. Augustine's position on this is that it would be impossible to achieve but ultimately a good thing because then everybody would be heaven and Satan would have no more people to tempt.

I understood the broader societal goal to be a less greedy and possessive society. But good luck with that one. In the capitalist age the only value you have is wealth or the ability to generate wealth.

[noddy]

its not like you could a society out of monks/priest/hermits.

not enough shagging for a start.

yeah, and when they start competing for the status of who is the most humble..... its gonna get REAL ugly.....

im more dopey than you motherf*cker!

ill also note that australia has many monestaries that have now turned into tourist traps, they used to be full of monks and nuns living the shared humble lives but for some reason noone stuck at it and they didnt get fresh meat.

wonder why.

[Mr. Perfect]

St. Augustine's position on this is that it would be impossible to achieve but ultimately a good thing because then everybody would be heaven and Satan would have no more people to tempt.

I understood the broader societal goal to be a less greedy and possessive society. But good luck with that one. In the capitalist age the only value you have is wealth or the ability to generate wealth.

That goes for any age.

[Mr. Perfect]

I've always looked at monks as sort of mentally ill.

[noddy]

its not like you could a society out of monks/priest/hermits.

not enough shagging for a start.

St. Augustine's position on this is that it would be impossible to achieve but ultimately a good thing because then everybody would be heaven and Satan would have no more people to tempt.

I understood the broader societal goal to be a less greedy and possessive society. But good luck with that one.

defined as just monk-alike to suit his personal preferences ?

In the capitalist age the only value you have is wealth or the ability to generate wealth.

strawman, i could just as easily say that in this socialist age the only value you have is the ability to contribute to the system.

truth is, the only places ive seen that dont "suffer" from these issues are the ones everyone is poor and prioritises community over production.. which is very easy to do aslong as you dont mind living in a sh*tshack, eating poor and dieing when you get sick.

the modern condition is to want everything and have someone else doing the hard bits.

[Ibrahim]

its not like you could a society out of monks/priest/hermits.

not enough shagging for a start.

St. Augustine's position on this is that it would be impossible to achieve but ultimately a good thing because then everybody would be heaven and Satan would have no more people to tempt.

I understood the broader societal goal to be a less greedy and possessive society. But good luck with that one.

defined as just monk-alike to suit his personal preferences ?

In the capitalist age the only value you have is wealth or the ability to generate wealth.

strawman, i could just as easily say that in this socialist age the only value you have is the ability to contribute to the system.

That would be fair. Historically who your parents were determined a lot of your value as a human being. None of these are great systems of assigning worth.

truth is, the only places ive seen that dont "suffer" from these issues are the ones everyone is poor and prioritises community over production..

This was a goal of the earliest Christian communities (among others).

which is very easy to do aslong as you dont mind living in a sh*tshack, eating poor and dieing when you get sick.

Ah, the lure of bourgeois comfort. I know it well.

the modern condition is to want everything and have someone else doing the hard bits.

e.g. ancient Egyptian aristocrats were into this as well.

[noddy]

the aristocrats didnt complain about the system that supported them, they felt entitled to it by right of birth.

the modern middle class westerner feels entitled to it and then adds a new layer of amusing self flagellation about it, they feel guilty but cant quite put their fingers on it.

for aslong as they come up with solutions that require someone elses effort or money then i will be sarcastic about those alleged good intentions, not because im some kind of saint but because im aware of how little our society (including me) actually operates on those communal village levels that they seem to crave but couldnt *lower* themselves to create.

another tax will fix it, maybe a wage rise, doesnt bother me, another tax will fix the consequences of that.