Capitalism is un-Christian.

[Blank]

If you are trying to argue that the Christian faith in general and in practice has obliged the submission to government authority in any significant way, you're not really going about proving it.

I'm pretty sure the point Jesus is making is that we should remember that instead of focusing on accumulating earthly things, give to God what it is due to God, the spiritual, heart matters that are far more important.

[taks]

but not with the implied premise that to believe in Christianity, one must blindly follow it.

that wasn't implied. what was actually implied is that those that do blindly follow it are hypocritical.

 

taks

[taks]

At some point, I wonder which is better, to be left without ideology or to carry with you some hypocrisy.

to be left without ideology is to be truly capable of free thought. think about it, what is ideology? the belief in a collection of related ideas originated by someone else.

 

taks

[Blank]

At some point, I wonder which is better, to be left without ideology or to carry with you some hypocrisy.

to be left without ideology is to be truly capable of free thought. think about it, what is ideology? the belief in a collection of related ideas originated by someone else.

 

taks

One could say that esteeming free thought as you are doing is itself an exercise of ideology.

[taks]

One could say that esteeming free thought as you are doing is itself an exercise of ideology.

sure, and people often do. it is absurd, of course, just like when collectivists talk about things like wage slavery.

 

taks

[Guard Dog]

*Sigh*... One troll thread wasn't enough huh?

 

 

Yes Christianity teaches selflesness. I am a Christian and I do believe in that. But you are missing a pretty major point. Becoming Christian is a choice everyone must make for themselves. We do not coerce. Under communisim if you do not go along you get a bullet in the head or get shipped off to a cold place to be worked to death. In fact in your other thread you seemd to think this was a good thing.

Depends on your definition of coercion I think. Communists just have the power to enforce their threats while Christians don't. It's an odd contrast to hear "Why can't we be friends!?" and "YOU'RE GONNA BURN IN HELL IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THE ALMIGHTY DUDE IN THE SKY WHO MADE ZOMBIES!" from the same person

 

You know, I've had this conversation before and I'll repeat now what I said then. There are two things about God I know to be a fact.

 

1) There is a God

2) I'm not God

 

I don't know who gets into heaven and who does not. I don't know what is a sin or what isn't. It is the height of idocy for one human to tell another "You are going to hell". It is for far greater beings to judge the worth of someones soul.

 

I do not know if prayers are answered, or ignored as the deists would tell you.

 

I do not know if God has predetermined everything and there is no free will as the Calvanists propose.

 

I do know if the Baptists are right and drinking and sex out of marriage are mortal sins then I'm already screwed.

 

The reason I am a Christian is that there were two incidents in my life, one just this year, that convined me beyond doubt that while my chosen faith may not be all true as I understand it, there is very much truth in it.

 

@ LoF: I am a real world Libertarian. I believe in, above all other things, the unimpeded freedom of the individual (one big reason why you and I will NEVER agree on anything LoF). Jesus taught that the virtue in giving comes from doing it because you WANT to do it. Not because the state TOOK it from you. Jesus said "What you do for the least of my children you do for me". If I donated my entire paycheck to a charity because I wanted to, that is virtuous. If the state confiscates my entire paycheck and uses it for what it deems "the greater good" there is no virtue in that for me. There is no virtue in it at all. It is just a group of people taking something they did not earn away from someone who did. There is a word for that too.

 

Just curious LoF. Do not answer if you will not answer honestly. I donated just under $3500 total to six different charities (most of them dog rescue groups) this past year. How much did you give?

Edited December 29, 2009 by Guard Dog

[Hurlshort]

I pretty much agree with GD on the faith aspect.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I have to agree with GD's assessment as well.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Yeah, I roughly agree, just from a Jewish standpoint.

Edited December 29, 2009 by I want teh kotor 3

[Calax]

*shrugs* I dislike religion, and if there is a god, he's probably to busy shaping a star to pay attention to what the little flecks on the tiny molecule of our earth have to say about who he is or isn't. The guy is trying to take care of a infinite area (ostensibly) and probably wouldn't care what something so insignificant as us would be yelling and pleading. It's like you caring about what the ants in dubai think about the space program.

[lord of flies]

@ LoF: I am a real world Libertarian. I believe in, above all other things, the unimpeded freedom of the individual (one big reason why you and I will NEVER agree on anything LoF). Jesus taught that the virtue in giving comes from doing it because you WANT to do it. Not because the state TOOK it from you. Jesus said "What you do for the least of my children you do for me". If I donated my entire paycheck to a charity because I wanted to, that is virtuous. If the state confiscates my entire paycheck and uses it for what it deems "the greater good" there is no virtue in that for me. There is no virtue in it at all. It is just a group of people taking something they did not earn away from someone who did. There is a word for that too.

Taxes? Please, the whole "taxes are theft" thing is unbiblical and untrue. I'd expect better of a self-proclaimed Christian.

Just curious LoF. Do not answer if you will not answer honestly. I donated just under $3500 total to six different charities (most of them dog rescue groups) this past year. How much did you give?

You have an unfair advantage in this regard, since my bank account currently contains less than that amount in its entirety.

 

As an aside, where in the Bible does it talk about giving to dogs? Nowhere, that's where. Oops! Looks like your charity was pointless because it didn't benefit the poor!

[Trenitay]

The Bible also says gays can't be gay, so I'm not sure I can believe everything in the Bible.

[Hurlshort]

LoF is the only one trying to use scripture to prove his point.

[Mikhailian]

On the one hand, there's about as proof to support the notion that GD is god, as there is evidence to support the existence of god at all.

 

Actually, strike that. There is more evidence to support that GD is god than there is the latter, as GD just posted here, and therefore there is someone/something behind his/her/it's posts.

 

All joking aside, while I don't care for any religion in general, I do appreciate a human being attempting to contribute to the world in a positive and constructive manner. It's my belief that most people at least loosely define their own morality, and discard that which they find moraly repulsive, crude, cruel, barbaric, or just inconvenient. People do this all the time with the Bible. They pick and choose which parts they'll live by, which parts they believe in literally, and which parts are a metaphor or parable. The people who take a completely literal interpretation are often referred to as extremists by all but their peers. Those who take it all with a grain of salt are considered lax by the church. It would seem to indicate that the truth is somewhere in the middle, and yet, it's still us flawed and moraly bancrupt humans who define that grey area.

 

I'd love to eventually see an academic resurgence in philosophy and logical reasoning, but living in the bible belt buckle of the U.S. as I do, I'd be one of the last people to reap the benefits.

[Humodour]

This thread is rather alien to me since I don't see how it would be a good or a bad thing if Christianity supported something (because it has a very murky track record for being on the side of good in the past).

[Fionavar]

Before I get all authoritarian, has anyone taken any time to actually comprehend the context of Adam Smith and his intent behind a Laissez Faire system of economics? Or should I just ASSUME that a thread such as this will only elicit inflammatory content as opposed to informed nuances that evidence a less than grey appreciation of how humanity should live in economic harmony based on the resource at hand?

[taks]

has anyone taken any time to actually comprehend the context of Adam Smith and his intent behind a Laissez Faire system of economics?

which interpretation would you be attempting to elicit from the hoi polloi?

 

Or should I just ASSUME that a thread such as this will only elicit inflammatory content as opposed to informed nuances that evidence a less than grey appreciation of how humanity should live in economic harmony based on the resource at hand?

probably.

 

granted, you so rarely post anything other than thread closures that i'm too shocked to really comment. nay, afraid.

 

taks

[Humodour]

Before I get all authoritarian, has anyone taken any time to actually comprehend the context of Adam Smith and his intent behind a Laissez Faire system of economics? Or should I just ASSUME that a thread such as this will only elicit inflammatory content as opposed to informed nuances that evidence a less than grey appreciation of how humanity should live in economic harmony based on the resource at hand?

 

Where the hell did that come from?

[Humodour]

Anyway while we're on the topic of Mr. Smith, I'd like to quote him:

 

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

[Fionavar]

Interesting ... input is derided as, in itself, authoritarian ...

 

Nonetheless, the challenge stills stands ... has any critique in this thread, per se, addressed, the context of Capitalism outside of a Consumerism paradigm... if the intent is not clear, it obviously lies with the reality that Smith was a Christian and the nuanced challenge herein would invite some interesting discussion ...

[Yuusha]

LOL... Cool thread. Apart from being un-Christian, more importantly I would also like to point out that Capitalism is undemocratic.

 

As I've stated before on the 'communism' thread, capitalism is greed-driven. And as such capitalism pretty much encourages corporations to play the market as aggressively as possible. Even if it means rewriting the rules by which we live to better suit their own interests. And while capitalism has become remarkably responsive to what people want as individual consumers, democracies have struggled to perform their own basic functions: to articulate and act upon the common good, and to help societies achieve both growth and equity (sounds a lot like socialism huh?).

 

Democracy, at the very least, should enable citizens to debate collectively how the slices of the pie should be divided and to determine which rules apply to private goods and which to public goods. The purpose of democracy is to accomplish ends we cannot achieve as individuals. But democracy cannot fulfill this role when companies use politics to advance or maintain their competitive standing, or when they appear to take on social responsibilities that they have no real capacity or authority to fulfill. That leaves societies unable to address the trade-offs between economic growth and social problems such as job insecurity, widening inequality, and climate change. As a result, consumer and investor interests almost invariably trump common concerns.

 

Contrary to popular belief, democracy and capitalism simply don't mix.

[Fionavar]

Well, as I reflect, I would offer Yuusha that Smith was both a Capitalist and a defender of Democracy vis-a-vis the electoral systems and would, likely, disagree with your gloss. What, I think is at the core of modern challenges is in respect to Consumerism not Capitalism. And, as such, I would encourage a revisit to the discrepancies therein. Because, conflating the two only leads to misinformation and inflammatory dialogue that is less than helpful to clarify POVs .. or such is my understanding fwiiw ...

[Trenitay]

It's been said before and it will be said again. Greed is NOT necessarily evil. It can be better to have greed and progress than generosity and stagnation. It's when greed and stagnation occur at the same time that problems come about.

[Humodour]

Interesting ... input is derided as, in itself, authoritarian ...

Well I apologise if that was not your intent. I figured you were making some remark about trolling in the thread and how you were about to close it. Why couch your contribution in language like that otherwise?

 

Frankly I don't understand where you're coming from. Are you arguing that consumerism is an evil, not capitalism itself? I'd in fact argue almost the opposite - corporatism is the evil, not capitalism itself.

 

 

Yuusha: Capitalism and democracy have been mixing well for many decades now. So have socialism and capitalism. Any modern Western democracy is a collection of parts from various different ideologies (mainly democracy, capitalism, and socialism). You could certainly argue that any society based purely on capitalism would not function.

 

I can understand where you're coming from because Indonesia is a fledgeling democracy still trying to shed decades of history where graft and corruption were the norm in politics and the economy. But surely Indonesia's present-day advances compared to even 10 years ago, as well as examples from the rest of the world (e.g. Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) are clear evidence for the success of democratic capitalism?

Edited December 29, 2009 by Krezack

[taks]

Democracy, at the very least, should enable citizens to debate collectively how the slices of the pie should be divided

that's your failing, in one simple statement. you assume there is only so much pie. tsk.

 

The purpose of democracy is to accomplish ends we cannot achieve as individuals.

that's (part of) the purpose of government, but not democracy per se. the purpose of democracy is so people have a choice in how their society is led.

 

Contrary to popular belief, democracy and capitalism simply don't mix.

completely untrue, and as already noted, history proves you wrong. does that mean democracy is the best form of government for capitalism? no.

 

taks