capitalism & Christianity: the unholy alliance

[Tod]

One of the biggest puzzles in my mind is how US Christians reconcile their adherence to both Christianity as the best religion and capitalism as the best system. There is no question that Jesus would find the idea of capitalism repugnant. What's worse, US Christians for the most part have been successfully brainwashed to hate communism, and even to associate it with atheism and downright Evil. Now, I'm not advocating one system over the other in this post, simply demonstrating how logic dictates that Jesus would most definitely support communism over capitalism.

Stranger still, the furthest right wing of our political landscape in the US is characterized by the most ardent and fundamentalist Christian believers AND the staunchest foes of not only outright communism or any form of socialism, but even against the welfare state! Fascinating stuff...

The earliest Christians, including the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, recognized that Jesus would support a "communistic" economy over a "capitalist" one (I use parenthesis because obviously they had no names for these systems at that time), and the author of Acts pens the first account of a communistic society led by the apostles! It is mentioned twice:

And all who shared the faith owned everything in common; they sold their goods and possessions and distributed the proceeds among themselves according to what each needed. (Acts 2:44-45, emphasis added)

The whole group of believers was united, heart and soul; no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, as everything they owned was held in common...None of their members was ever in want, as all those who owned land or houses would sell them, and bring the money from the sale of them, to present to the apostles; it was then distributed to any who might be in need. (Acts 4:32 & 34, emphasis added)

Wow, they are virtually quoting Marx almost 1800 years before he was born! So why would most US Christians of today be so against the form of "government" that ruled over the earliest Christian community? How can communism be "evil" if the apostles found it a system of economics most in accordance with Jesus' teachings? Of course the apostles would choose a communistic lifestyle, as that is the only lifestyle that is FULLY consistent with Jesus' teachings. Most Christians would argue that the apostles, since they allegedly knew Jesus, would most know what he would teach and believe in. They choose a communistic lifestyle because it is the only lifestyle, again, truly and fully consistent with Jesus' teachings.

Indeed, not only was the early Church communist, but it was more akin to Soviet communism than the caricature of Marxist communism. It is believed that Marx though communism would lead by example, with no need for force. Obviously, Soviet-style communism had a different idea. Which most resembled the communism of the apostles?

There was also a man called Ananias. He and his wife, Sapphira, agreed to sell a property; but with his wife's connivance he kept back part of the price and brought the rest and presented it to the apostles. Peter said, 'Ananias, how can Satan have so possessed you that you should lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of your land?... You have been lying not to men, but to God. When he heard this Ananias fell down dead. And a great fear came upon everyone present....About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had taken place. Peter challenged her, 'Tell me, was this the price you sold the land for? 'Yes,' she said, 'that was the price.' Peter then said, 'Why did you and your husband agree to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Listen! At the door are the footsteps of those who have buried your husband; they will carry you out too.' Instantly she dropped dead at his feet... And a great fear came upon the whole Church and on all who heard it. (Acts 5:1-11)

So lack of economic compliance is punishable by death, even for keeping only a "part," and that results in fear among the rest of the population so they will not be so inclined in the future. Sounds a lot like totalitarian communism. So why is communism so bad, even forced communism, according to Christian teachings?

But what did Jesus himself have to say on the subject of economics? Obviously he didn't discuss economic system per se, but his teachings imply which system would be most fitting in his eyes.

To anyone who slaps you on one cheek, present the other cheek as well; to anyone who takes your cloak from you, do not refuse your tunic. Give to everyone who ask you, and do not ask for your property back from someone who takes it... And if you lend to those from whom you hope to get money back, what credit can you expect? Even sinners lend to get back the same amount. Instead, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend without any hope of return. (Luke 6:29-35, emphasis added)

Some defenders will ignore key points of this statement and say that these verses still put choice in the believers hand, whereas taking taxes and giving it to the poor as welfare is "theft." Jesus wouldn't support that, they would argue, even though Jesus explicitly said "do not ask for your property back from someone who takes it," and basically says to give more to the thief that robs you than he has already taken. So Jesus would not qualify that the believer is to be judicious and give only when they see fit: You should help ANYBODY according to Jesus.

"I don't want to support deadbeats who aren't contributing and who are taking advantage of the system," many will argue. Jesus clearly didn't limit his admonishment to help others only to those we found "worthy" or "contributing members of society," he said give even to the thief, and makes it clear that there is no qualification about who is worthy. Even "sinners" make judicious decisions about what to do with their money, Jesus would argue based on the aforementioned quote, so believers must give to ALL and ANYBODY who needs it.

As far as taxes being bad or "theft" as right-wingers claim, Jesus had the opportunity to condemn taxes, but what did he do instead? He said pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar--and God what belongs to God. (Luke 20:25) Clearly, Jesus didn't condemn taxes, and furthermore, even if he thought it WAS theft (which he never indicates), he taught in the earlier quote I offered from Luke that we shouldn't be concerned enough with material things to want our stuff back when it is stolen, and should simply be happy that the "thief" is being helped.

Additionally, Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself. (Mat. 22:39) If you TRULY love everybody else equally to how you love yourself, you would want them to have everything that you have, at least in matters of well being. You wouldn't want them to go hungry, because you wouldn't want that for yourself. You wouldn't want them to be unable to pay their medical bills and go into crushing debt, because you wouldn't want to have that happen to you and yours.

If everybody in a society TRULY lived by the motto "love your neighbor as yourself," we would have a communistic society. If all Christians in the US alone (85% of the population) lived by this maxim, then none could sleep at night knowing there was economic suffering on behalf of their neighbors. Any Christian who isn't keeping just enough of his or her income to be comfortable, and giving the rest to help others, isn't living by Jesus' maxims. Actually, I'm being generous, because nothing in Jesus' teachings said "make yourself comfortable first, THEN help others," and indeed I would suspect he would advocate self-sacrifice for others: so truly Christians shouldn't even keep enough to be comfortable: just enough for them and their families to survive. If that was the result, clearly most Christian income (again, 85% of the population) would be tied up in the community so others would not go without, which would be some form of socialism at the very least.

As the US population ever in its' entire history done anything even REMOTELY like this? Of course not, and that is why the government had to MAKE the population help the poor through welfare so the poor wouldn't get poorer and some might be able to rise out of it, as well as to prevent be mass homelessness, rampant crime, and untold suffering, starvation, and death for millions of Americans. What has the "Christian" right-wing done ever since? Bitch, whine, moan, and desire their "stolen" money back, in direct opposition to what Jesus instructs.

They are the ones who are harshest in their judgment of the poor (they're "lazy," "stupid," "unmotived," "leeches," etc). Indeed, if everybody was truly living a Christian lifestyle according to Jesus' teachings, the government would have nothing to do with it: the citizenry would enact communism on its own, and give on its own to make sure that not one, single American was suffering due to economic or materialistic hardship.

Ironically, the two things Jesus railed about in the gospels most of all were judging others and hypocrisy. Who are among the most judgmental and hypocritical lot among groups in America? The Christian Right, of course... Homosexuals and abortion doctors beware, Christians have made you public enemy number one because they have "judged" you to be immoral, even though Jesus didn't speak one iota on the alleged evil of homosexuality and abortion, both of which were common in his time and had been for many thousands of years. He did, however, frequently teach to keep your judgments to yourselves and to live the Christian life instead of just talking it, but Christians have ignored these emphases of Jesus.

The rich are particularly hypocritical, since not only are they ignoring the aforementioned teachings of Jesus, they go through all kinds of rationalizations to deal with Jesus' very clear statements about hording wealth instead of sharing it.

If you wish to be perfect, go and sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come follow me....In truth I tell you, it is hard for someone rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Yes, I tell you again, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for someone rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven. (Mat. 19:21-24)

Whoever wrote the epistles to Timothy (probably not Paul, in this case, even though it is attributed to him) carries on this anti-rich position with the famous line: The love of money is the root of all evils'... (I Tim 6:10)

Christians, particularly the rich ones, will try to rationalize these in a lot of ways. Some will nit-pick on what "eye of a needle" means, claiming that it can't really mean a needle, since a camel could not pass through the eye of a literal needle. Duh, that is kinda Jesus' point! They will, however, rattle on with silly nonsense about archways too short to allow packed camels to pass that were called "eye of the needle," never really refuting Jesus' point, especially since he clarified it by basically saying to sell everything and give away all of the money.

To the second verse, they will point out that "the love of money" is the root of all evil, not money, but a) it is a strawman when they offer it to me, since I NEVER leave out the "love" part, and two: show me a rich person that doesn't love their money and material possessions? If you have a monstrous house that is more than you need, a garage full of ten or more different cars, and you are aware that some are starving or can't afford to pay their bills, you love your possessions (and money) more than your starving "neighbors," and therefore can't possibly be loving your "neighbor as yourself"! If you allow people to die you could have saved with your money, you love your money more than people, period.

The fact that most US Christians honor both Jesus' birth and capitalism on the same day of the year shows the height of this "unholy alliance." I think Jesus would be more disgusted with this nation than Yahweh was with Sodom & Gomorrah. After all, what is worse in Jesus' eyes: "unnatural sex" that he didn't speak of one iota, or failing to help those in need, which he preached ad nausem about?

Considering that Jesus was unemployed during his ministry (at least according to tradition), and depended on the charity of others to live day-to-day so he could perform his "duties," and considering how he railed against materialism over compassion (as well as against judgment and hypocrisy), and considering that he is often portrayed as frequently scraggly and unkempt (which would make sense with his lifestyle), I am quite sure that the right-wing Christians of the US would crucify him all over again if he came today and didn't identify himself in any way as "Jesus." That "bleeding heart liberal" preaching against greed, materialism, and indulgence in modern America would be sneered and derided by those who claim to follow him!

Could you not picture the sight when he went to some well to do "good Christians'" home asking for lodging or food? "Get out of here you filthy commie bum, and get a job!!" I'm sure that would be a common response.

[lpetrich]

I remember someone calling the Ananias and Sapphira story Stalinist.

Meaning that Ananias and Sapphira were some pesky kulaks who refused to collectivize their property when Commissar Peter demanded that they do so.

[Redshirt]

Christian theology and right-wing capitalism do have some overlap in values, depending on what theology is considered.

For instance, Calvin's doctrine of predestination has some symmetry with the conservative notion of "if you're poor, you deserve it; if you're rich, you deserve it." Calvinists might consider material success as sign that one may have spiritual or moral success.

There's also the idea of personal salvation and the "Protestant work ethic". This is the idea that salvation can only come about through personal piety rather than a collective membership in a church. Likewise, conservatives believe that prosperity can only come about through individual industry and hard work rather than collective institutions.

You might find this article interesting (and perhaps revolting as well):

Universal health care: Unbiblical socialism (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54748)

The Bible teaches God is a creative and productive being and man, who is made in His image, was created for the same. Economic systems that perpetuate or construct dependence or reward sloth strike at the very heart of what it means to be human. Thus, the apostle Paul admonished the Thessalonians: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." (II Thessalonians 3:10) Certainly, those who cannot provide for themselves, despite every effort they can summon, should be helped in the form of charity. Nevertheless, the Scriptures teach that ingenuity and industry are what should be rewarded, while laziness or failure to provide a service the public needs should go unrewarded.

What is inherently immoral about socialistic endeavors is the effort to equalize economic conditions by forcibly redistributing wealth. To get this done, the right to private property, which God gives in the eighth commandment of the Decalogue, is violated. And charity, which according to the Scriptures is supposed to spring willingly from the heart, is instead coerced. Therefore, the image of God in man – his creativity and productivity – is suppressed, while those who are indolent prosper.

[The Barefoot Bum]

Indeed, not only was the early Church communist, but it was more akin to Soviet communism than the caricature of Marxist communism. It is believed that Marx though communism would lead by example, with no need for force. Obviously, Soviet-style communism had a different idea. Which most resembled the communism of the apostles?

There was also a man called Ananias. He and his wife, Sapphira, agreed to sell a property; but with his wife's connivance he kept back part of the price and brought the rest and presented it to the apostles. ... Listen! At the door are the footsteps of those who have buried your husband; they will carry you out too.' Instantly she dropped dead at his feet... And a great fear came upon the whole Church and on all who heard it. (Acts 5:1-11)

So lack of economic compliance is punishable by death, even for keeping only a "part," and that results in fear among the rest of the population so they will not be so inclined in the future. Sounds a lot like totalitarian communism. So why is communism so bad, even forced communism, according to Christian teachings?

Note that there's a big difference between enforcing the law and totalitarianism.

Economic systems that perpetuate or construct dependence or reward sloth strike at the very heart of what it means to be human.

I know this is not your own opinion, but it should be noted that communism and socialism are not intended to construct, perpetuate or reward dependence or sloth. Quite the contrary: communism takes direct aim at those rewards that do not accrue by virtue of labor: profit, interest and rent.

[Tod]

Note that there's a big difference between enforcing the law and totalitarianism.

Technically you're right, in that there's no further indication that the apostles controlled every aspect of the community member's lives; I was just underscoring the extremely harsh nature of the punishment in the case of the apostles, and how it reminded me a lot more of Soviet-style communism than Marx's more idealistic communism.

I suppose it would be better to call it "strictly and harshly enforced communism!"

[dancer_rnb]

Note that there's a big difference between enforcing the law and totalitarianism.



I know this is not your own opinion, but it should be noted that communism and socialism are not intended to construct, perpetuate or reward dependence or sloth. Quite the contrary: communism takes direct aim at those rewards that do not accrue by virtue of labor: profit, interest and rent.

Wasn't there also a concept of parasitism by not contributing? Conveniently used against those out of favor?

[Tod]

Christian theology and right-wing capitalism do have some overlap in values, depending on what theology is considered.

For instance, Calvin's doctrine of predestination has some symmetry with the conservative notion of "if you're poor, you deserve it; if you're rich, you deserve it." Calvinists might consider material success as sign that one may have spiritual or moral success.

There's also the idea of personal salvation and the "Protestant work ethic". This is the idea that salvation can only come about through personal piety rather than a collective membership in a church. Likewise, conservatives believe that prosperity can only come about through individual industry and hard work rather than collective institutions.

Please don't misunderstand; my argument isn't that U.S. Christians don't even try to justify their hypocrisy, I'm well aware of that, my argument is that they are ignoring those clear teachings of Jesus that totally oppose their position (and arguments they use to rationalize their position).

Certainly any Christian who would use the protestant work ethic or calvinism to justify their capitalistic views would be ignoring Jesus' teachings on this subject. I can't recall a single verse where Jesus advocates either the protestant work ethic or calvinism, and he certainly never uses either of those concepts to justify not helping anybody who needs it, saying just the opposite: help even those who you don't think are worthy for whatever reason.

[The Barefoot Bum]

[the extremely harsh nature of the punishment] reminded me a lot more of Soviet-style communism than Marx's more idealistic communism.

I suppose it would be better to call it "strictly and harshly enforced communism!"

First, Marx was no naif; he was very much in favor of armed struggle. Second, the death penalty wasn't unusually harsh for biblical times. Third, there's considerable controversy over whether communism per se was harshly enforced under Soviet (or Chinese) communism; there are a lot of complicating factors, not the least of which is the authoritarian cultural and social history of the Russian people prior to communism. A lot of the repression -- definitely abhorrent and unjust -- was directed not towards the common worker but towards the bourgeoisie and those who supported them, including the clergy and the privileged intelligentsia.

[The Barefoot Bum]

Wasn't there also a concept of parasitism by not contributing? Conveniently used against those out of favor?

It's definitely the case that under the socialist transition to communism, some mechanism is still required to prevent free riders. The communist goal of "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" requires considerably more productive efficiency than capitalism can generate.

[The Barefoot Bum]

(Just to be clear, I agree with the main thesis of this thread, that Christianity is or ought to be ideologically aligned more with communism than with capitalism. Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon), an important pre-communist influence, was explicit in crediting the Bible as an important source for his critique of property: "My real masters, those who have caused fertile ideas to spring up in my mind, are three in number: first, the Bible; next, Adam Smith; and last, Hegel.")

[Tod]

First, Marx was no naif; he was very much in favor of armed struggle. Second, the death penalty wasn't unusually harsh for biblical times. Third, there's considerable controversy over whether communism per se was harshly enforced under Soviet (or Chinese) communism; there are a lot of complicating factors, not the least of which is the authoritarian cultural and social history of the Russian people prior to communism. A lot of the repression -- definitely abhorrent and unjust -- was directed not towards the common worker but towards the bourgeoisie and those who supported them, including the clergy and the privileged intelligentsia.

Notice in my first post I said "it is believed" and "the caricature of Marx." I agree with you that Marx was in favor of armed struggle, and only noted it in my first post as an interesting aside that wasn't terribly relevant to the overall thesis.

[The Barefoot Bum]

Notice in my first post I said "it is believed" and "the caricature of Marx." I agree with you that Marx was in favor of armed struggle, and only noted it in my first post as an interesting aside that wasn't terribly relevant to the overall thesis.

I understand.

[LoneWolf]

I think many Christians would argue that communism is FORCED compassion. You aren't going to get any special kudos from God for helping your fellow man when you didn't have a choice in the matter.

[DMB]

I think you can argue that Jesus was not much in favour of the work ethic anyway. Look at the story of Mary and Martha.

[David B]

I think many Christians would argue that communism is FORCED compassion. You aren't going to get any special kudos from God for helping your fellow man when you didn't have a choice in the matter.

Didn't stop many Christians from imposing FORCED Christianity over much of the history of the church.

[LoneWolf]

Didn't stop many Christians from imposing FORCED Christianity over much of the history of the church.

Nope. No it did not.

[Tod]

I think many Christians would argue that communism is FORCED compassion. You aren't going to get any special kudos from God for helping your fellow man when you didn't have a choice in the matter.

I already addressed that in the initial post: even if taxation is forced assistance to the poor, Jesus clearly said not to desire back stolen property: if taxation is force (i.e. stolen), it shouldn't matter according to Jesus, and Jesus had no problem with taxes anyway, as he made clear when speaking of "giving to Caesar what is Caesar's...".

Secondly, as I already pointed out, a truly Christian society would not need the government to force them to live communistically. With 85% Christians in this country, if every one of them lived to the generous letter Jesus' taught, nobody would be in need in this country, and the wealth would be redistributed by the citizens on their own accord.

As I pointed out: any US Christian who isn't using just enough of their income to get by and using the rest to help those more unfortunate aren't living up to Jesus' ideals. If they truly loved their neighbors as themselves, there would be nobody hungry in this country or anybody who couldn't afford to pay their bills.

If this wasn't a nation of hypocritical Christians, it certainly wouldn't be the case that those most Christian on the far right are the ones most likely to be judgmental of the poor and most likely to oppose welfare assistance.

[Ray Moscow]

I love to point out to self-proclaimed "Christians" how their practices and political beliefs are the opposite of Jesus' [reputed] teachings.

Most of the "conservative" sort of Christians wouldn't vote for Jesus for dog-catcher, much less "Lord".

[Joykins]

What's worse, US Christians for the most part have been successfully brainwashed to hate communism, and even to associate it with atheism and downright Evil.

To be fair, it's Communists that have associated their ideology with atheism (going back to Marx) and downright Evil (purges, dictatorships, oppression, bloody revolution).

Jesus's teachings and the lifestyles of his followers as described in Acts are definitely communal ethics. Obviously, well prior to and not associated with Marx's particular ideology.



The fact that most US Christians honor both Jesus' birth and capitalism on the same day of the year shows the height of this "unholy alliance." I think Jesus would be more disgusted with this nation than Yahweh was with Sodom & Gomorrah. After all, what is worse in Jesus' eyes: "unnatural sex" that he didn't speak of one iota, or failing to help those in need, which he preached ad nausem about?

Yup, you nailed it. This is why the "War on Christmas" stuff amuses the shit out of me.

As a Christian lefty I have had conversations about this with a lot of people. At a deep level, many of them Just Don't Get It.

[Joykins]

I think you can argue that Jesus was not much in favour of the work ethic anyway. Look at the story of Mary and Martha.

That is the story that validates the existence of Nerd Women :D

[Tod]

To be fair, it's Communists that have associated their ideology with atheism (going back to Marx) and downright Evil (purges, dictatorships, oppression, bloody revolution).

True as far as atheism goes, but does that mean that U.S. Christians had to perpetuate the same foolish mistake? Are the imaginations of U.S. Christians so limited that they can't separate the economic system from the atheism? There is no logical connection between the economic model of communism and atheism, and there is little question that the earliest Christians would have found that linkage laughable, as well as the modern demonization of communistic ideas. No matter who makes the faulty association, communism is still more consistent with Jesus' teachings than capitalism.

As to the "evil" part, you'd be hard pressed to find a communist from Marx to Stalin that would label communism "evil," and the "evil" actions you list are little different (and in cases not as bad) from the acts of myriad Christians throughout Christianity's history, so any Christian that labels the raw economic philosophy of communism "evil" because of the acts of Soviet communists is being both illogical (because raw communism doesn't require such acts) and hypocritical (because the Christian religion could be called evil on the same basis).

Jesus's teachings and the lifestyles of his followers as described in Acts are definitely communal ethics. Obviously, well prior to and not associated with Marx's particular ideology.

Well yeah, didn't you notice in my post where I said "almost 1800 years before Marx was born" or the part where I pointed out that there wasn't a name for "communism" when the apostles lived? It doesn't change the fact that it is the same principle: everybody gives all to the central pot from which it is then redistributed according to need. It is the same, basic, philosophy. Clearly the apostles thought that a communist-type economy was most consistent with their, and hence Jesus', principles.

Yup, you nailed it. This is why the "War on Christmas" stuff amuses the shit out of me.

As a Christian lefty I have had conversations about this with a lot of people. At a deep level, many of them Just Don't Get It.

The same people who believe Jesus would be a staunch Republican were he alive today, no doubt. ; )

[Joykins]

Tod, I think communism as ideal vs. communism as practiced is a good distinction to make. By their actions, communists have associated their ideology with evil. Advocation (or an insistence on the necessity) of bloody revolution is also what Orwell would have called ungood.

As for atheism, it is a major component of modern Marxist communism. Does this mean all communal ideologies are atheistic? No. But it's quite fair to associate modern Marxism with atheism and violence, and it is also fair to say that those who set up communist regimes have shown the abuses that tend to spring from this particular ideology.

I think every ideology can be abused, it's just that the abuses tend to be of different types. Our country has realized the abuses of capitalism.

[Tod]

Tod, I think communism as ideal vs. communism as practiced is a good distinction to make. By their actions, communists have associated their ideology with evil. Advocation (or an insistence on the necessity) of bloody revolution is also what Orwell would have called ungood.

As for atheism, it is a major component of modern Marxist communism. Does this mean all communal ideologies are atheistic? No. But it's quite fair to associate modern Marxism with atheism and violence, and it is also fair to say that those who set up communist regimes have shown the abuses that tend to spring from this particular ideology.

I think every ideology can be abused, it's just that the abuses tend to be of different types. Our country has realized the abuses of capitalism.

But none of this has any bearing whatsoever on what I'm arguing. Maybe I've misunderstood you and you aren't even trying to address my argument, just adding your own asides?

[Joykins]

You may consider it an aside; I consider it to be commentary on your point that Christians associate Marxist communism with Atheism and Evil; my point is that this is a legitimate association to make.

[Tod]

You may consider it an aside; I consider it to be commentary on your point that Christians associate Marxist communism with Atheism and Evil; my point is that this is a legitimate association to make.

Then you're missing my point entirely. Forget Marx. Forget details. We are talking purely about a communal economy verses a capitalist one, and which one would be more aligned with Jesus' teachings. Show me where in my entire first post I limited the demonization of communism by Christians to just Marx's variety?

I never did, and indeed I only mentioned Marx specifically to contrast the caricature of his version of communism (that I don't even think is valid) to the Soviet variety. Aside from that, the only time his name is mentioned is when I point out that Acts outlines the basics of Marx's theory 1800 years before he was born.

To make it about Marx would be to erect a huge strawman, since nothing I'm arguing depends on Marx in the least. I'm not saying that Christians associate "Marxist communism" with atheism and evil, I'm saying that most U.S. Christians associate communism, period (no particular brand), with evil, even though communism was the economical system of the first Christian community and it is more in alignment with Jesus' teachings.

[tjakey]

Its easy Tod, U.S. Christians, especially the far right-winger types, are just plain, bat-shit crazy. Inconsistent with their own ideology? Hell, these folks are inconsistent with being living, breathing, caring human beings. The fact that they are allowed to go on ranting is pretty good evidence that no god exists. No really existing god would put up with the bullshit done in "his" name.

The loon factor of believers of various woo cannot be overstated, they will believe pretty much any fruit-nut thing from claiming that the earth is 6000 years old to thinking that eating a bit of cracker is really a divine bit of cannibalism that will get them into heaven. All things considered: that they manage to be zealot capitalists in spite of the Sermon on the Mount is a minor bit of fuck-nuttery, not even in the top 10.

[Norrin Radd]

Christian theology and right-wing capitalism do have some overlap in values, depending on what theology is considered.

For instance, Calvin's doctrine of predestination has some symmetry with the conservative notion of "if you're poor, you deserve it; if you're rich, you deserve it." Calvinists might consider material success as sign that one may have spiritual or moral success.

I'm much closer to Arminius than Calvin, but I still fee confident in saying that you're misrepresenting Calvinism. I don't see Calvinism as teaching that anyone "deserves" anything good.



There's also the idea of personal salvation and the "Protestant work ethic". This is the idea that salvation can only come about through personal piety rather than a collective membership in a church. Likewise, conservatives believe that prosperity can only come about through individual industry and hard work rather than collective institutions.

Note however that neither Calvinists nor Arminians nor, for that matter, ANY Christians believe that our "persona salvation" comes about as a result of any sort of "work" that we do.

[SallyAnne]

Christian theology and right-wing capitalism do have some overlap in values, depending on what theology is considered.

For instance, Calvin's doctrine of predestination has some symmetry with the conservative notion of "if you're poor, you deserve it; if you're rich, you deserve it." Calvinists might consider material success as sign that one may have spiritual or moral success.

There's also the idea of personal salvation and the "Protestant work ethic". This is the idea that salvation can only come about through personal piety rather than a collective membership in a church. Likewise, conservatives believe that prosperity can only come about through individual industry and hard work rather than collective institutions.

Please don't misunderstand; my argument isn't that U.S. Christians don't even try to justify their hypocrisy, I'm well aware of that, my argument is that they are ignoring those clear teachings of Jesus that totally oppose their position (and arguments they use to rationalize their position).






But whether you like it or not, American Conservatives give the most to charity. So it's not like they're stingy in their charity under a capitalist economic system.

Because Obama didn't give anything to charity and yet he was campaigning all that bleeding heart liberalism and yet his pockets weren't reflecting his own mantra about taking care of peeps.

(I hope I got that right, we were just discussing this over at CF so I might need to go back and get the stats, but I'm pretty sure it was revealed that he didn't give jack to charity.)

[SallyAnne]

There was also a man called Ananias. He and his wife, Sapphira, agreed to sell a property; but with his wife's connivance he kept back part of the price and brought the rest and presented it to the apostles. Peter said, 'Ananias, how can Satan have so possessed you that you should lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of your land?... You have been lying not to men, but to God. When he heard this Ananias fell down dead. And a great fear came upon everyone present....About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had taken place. Peter challenged her, 'Tell me, was this the price you sold the land for? 'Yes,' she said, 'that was the price.' Peter then said, 'Why did you and your husband agree to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Listen! At the door are the footsteps of those who have buried your husband; they will carry you out too.' Instantly she dropped dead at his feet... And a great fear came upon the whole Church and on all who heard it. (Acts 5:1-11)

So lack of economic compliance is punishable by death, even for keeping only a "part," and that results in fear among the rest of the population so they will not be so inclined in the future. Sounds a lot like totalitarian communism. So why is communism so bad, even forced communism, according to Christian teachings?



I think the reason for their deaths was because they had LIED to God. It's not a political statement about communism or any political ideology. It's about brazenly lying to God.

Paul even says "you have been lying not to men, but to God." And it was then that Ananias dropped dead, when he heard that.

That isn't a critique of totalitarian communism or any political ideology. The message is really "Don't lie to God" because there are grave consequences. God is not man, and you can't lie directly to Him and expect to stand strong in His presence.

[SallyAnne]

Wasn't there also a concept of parasitism by not contributing?


2 Thessalonians 3:10 (King James Version)

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

[lpetrich]

SallyAnne, how had Ananias and Sapphira "lied"? There is no hint in that story that they had reneged on some prior commitment.

In any case, Peter seems rather Stalinist, demanding that those pesky kulaks Ananias and Sapphira collectivize their property.

[SallyAnne]

SallyAnne, how had Ananias and Sapphira "lied"? There is no hint in that story that they had reneged on some prior commitment.



Acts 5:1

snip / There was also a man called Ananias. He and his wife, Sapphira, agreed to sell a property; but with his wife's connivance he kept back part of the price and brought the rest and presented it to the apostles / snip

[lpetrich]

That's not exactly lying; that's giving only some of the money to the apostles. If Peter chose to interpret that as lying, then he was acting like a Stalinist here.

[Norrin Radd]

Sheesh, take a breath! Trying to win your point by talking the opposition to sleep! :bang:



One of the biggest puzzles in my mind is how US Christians reconcile their adherence to both Christianity as the best religion and capitalism as the best system. There is no question that Jesus would find the idea of capitalism repugnant.

Sorry, there's plenty of question.

Matt. 20:12, for instance, does not seem very friendly to "worker protection" or "equal pay for equal work." (Yes, I realize it was a parable. The point is, Jesus chose what He apparently considered a legitimate business practice to illustrate His spiritual point.)



What's worse, US Christians for the most part have been successfully brainwashed to hate communism, and even to associate it with atheism and downright Evil. Now, I'm not advocating one system over the other in this post, simply demonstrating how logic dictates that Jesus would most definitely support communism over capitalism.

One can just as easily make the case that He would "support" a system that included slavery, with inefficient slaves being harshly beaten.



Stranger still, the furthest right wing of our political landscape in the US is characterized by the most ardent and fundamentalist Christian believers AND the staunchest foes of not only outright communism or any form of socialism, but even against the welfare state! Fascinating stuff...

The earliest Christians, including the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, recognized that Jesus would support a "communistic" economy over a "capitalist" one (I use parenthesis because obviously they had no names for these systems at that time), and the author of Acts pens the first account of a communistic society led by the apostles! It is mentioned twice:

And all who shared the faith owned everything in common; they sold their goods and possessions and distributed the proceeds among themselves according to what each needed. (Acts 2:44-45, emphasis added)

The whole group of believers was united, heart and soul; no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, as everything they owned was held in common...None of their members was ever in want, as all those who owned land or houses would sell them, and bring the money from the sale of them, to present to the apostles; it was then distributed to any who might be in need. (Acts 4:32 & 34, emphasis added)

Wow, they are virtually quoting Marx almost 1800 years before he was born!

Well, since you want to invoke Marx, didn't he famously say, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?

Jesus, on the other hand, said, "...to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away." He endorsed recompense based on faithfulness, not just "need."



So why would most US Christians of today be so against the form of "government" that ruled over the earliest Christian community?

Maybe because by the time of 1 Cor. 16, Paul had to solicit help from the Corinthian Xians for the Xians in Jerusalem. One *could* interpret that to mean that the communistic experiment failed.

It is consistently *assumed* in Scripture that typical Xians may be home-owners and may even hold slaves, far from giving everything away. Paul taught that believers are to provide for THEIR OWN families (1 Tim. 5:8), and the Scriptures that both Jesus and Paul honored said that a "good" man would provide enough inheritance even for his GRANDchildren. (Prov. 13:22)



How can communism be "evil" if the apostles found it a system of economics most in accordance with Jesus' teachings? Of course the apostles would choose a communistic lifestyle, as that is the only lifestyle that is FULLY consistent with Jesus' teachings. Most Christians would argue that the apostles, since they allegedly knew Jesus, would most know what he would teach and believe in. They choose a communistic lifestyle because it is the only lifestyle, again, truly and fully consistent with Jesus' teachings.

Indeed, not only was the early Church communist, but it was more akin to Soviet communism than the caricature of Marxist communism. It is believed that Marx though communism would lead by example, with no need for force. Obviously, Soviet-style communism had a different idea. Which most resembled the communism of the apostles?

There was also a man called Ananias. He and his wife, Sapphira, agreed to sell a property; but with his wife's connivance he kept back part of the price and brought the rest and presented it to the apostles. Peter said, 'Ananias, how can Satan have so possessed you that you should lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of your land?... You have been lying not to men, but to God. When he heard this Ananias fell down dead. And a great fear came upon everyone present....About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had taken place. Peter challenged her, 'Tell me, was this the price you sold the land for? 'Yes,' she said, 'that was the price.' Peter then said, 'Why did you and your husband agree to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Listen! At the door are the footsteps of those who have buried your husband; they will carry you out too.' Instantly she dropped dead at his feet... And a great fear came upon the whole Church and on all who heard it. (Acts 5:1-11)

So lack of economic compliance is punishable by death, even for keeping only a "part," and that results in fear among the rest of the population so they will not be so inclined in the future. Sounds a lot like totalitarian communism. So why is communism so bad, even forced communism, according to Christian teachings?

Read the text again. Are they being punished for greed, or for LYING? And while you're at it, think about what YOU may be doing in the way you're using the text.



But what did Jesus himself have to say on the subject of economics? Obviously he didn't discuss economic system per se, but his teachings imply which system would be most fitting in his eyes.

To anyone who slaps you on one cheek, present the other cheek as well; to anyone who takes your cloak from you, do not refuse your tunic. Give to everyone who ask you, and do not ask for your property back from someone who takes it... And if you lend to those from whom you hope to get money back, what credit can you expect? Even sinners lend to get back the same amount. Instead, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend without any hope of return. (Luke 6:29-35, emphasis added)

Some defenders will ignore key points of this statement and say that these verses still put choice in the believers hand, whereas taking taxes and giving it to the poor as welfare is "theft." Jesus wouldn't support that, they would argue, even though Jesus explicitly said "do not ask for your property back from someone who takes it," and basically says to give more to the thief that robs you than he has already taken. So Jesus would not qualify that the believer is to be judicious and give only when they see fit: You should help ANYBODY according to Jesus.

Well, *I* would point out that YOU have ignored key points -- specifically the succeeding verses, specifically 6:38, which distinctly indicates motivated self-interest.

I would also point out that if you want to apply this whole passage as broadly as the part about property, it would mean that all laws, including laws against assault, should be revoked.



"I don't want to support deadbeats who aren't contributing and who are taking advantage of the system," many will argue. Jesus clearly didn't limit his admonishment to help others only to those we found "worthy" or "contributing members of society," he said give even to the thief, and makes it clear that there is no qualification about who is worthy. Even "sinners" make judicious decisions about what to do with their money, Jesus would argue based on the aforementioned quote, so believers must give to ALL and ANYBODY who needs it.

OTOH, He was not so quick to "help" the mockers of His own hometown, nor the Canaanite "dog."



As far as taxes being bad or "theft" as right-wingers claim, Jesus had the opportunity to condemn taxes, but what did he do instead? He said pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar--and God what belongs to God. (Luke 20:25) Clearly, Jesus didn't condemn taxes,

Right. His clear intention was to avoid taking a stance one way or the other, because the question was insincere in the first place, intended only to set a trap for Him.



and furthermore, even if he thought it WAS theft (which he never indicates), he taught in the earlier quote I offered from Luke that we shouldn't be concerned enough with material things to want our stuff back when it is stolen, and should simply be happy that the "thief" is being helped.

Additionally, Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself. (Mat. 22:39) If you TRULY love everybody else equally to how you love yourself, you would want them to have everything that you have, at least in matters of well being. You wouldn't want them to go hungry, because you wouldn't want that for yourself. You wouldn't want them to be unable to pay their medical bills and go into crushing debt, because you wouldn't want to have that happen to you and yours.

If everybody in a society TRULY lived by the motto "love your neighbor as yourself," we would have a communistic society. If all Christians in the US alone (85% of the population) lived by this maxim, then none could sleep at night knowing there was economic suffering on behalf of their neighbors. Any Christian who isn't keeping just enough of his or her income to be comfortable, and giving the rest to help others, isn't living by Jesus' maxims. Actually, I'm being generous, because nothing in Jesus' teachings said "make yourself comfortable first, THEN help others," and indeed I would suspect he would advocate self-sacrifice for others: so truly Christians shouldn't even keep enough to be comfortable: just enough for them and their families to survive. If that was the result, clearly most Christian income (again, 85% of the population) would be tied up in the community so others would not go without, which would be some form of socialism at the very least.

As the US population ever in its' entire history done anything even REMOTELY like this? Of course not, and that is why the government had to MAKE the population help the poor through welfare so the poor wouldn't get poorer and some might be able to rise out of it, as well as to prevent be mass homelessness, rampant crime, and untold suffering, starvation, and death for millions of Americans. What has the "Christian" right-wing done ever since? Bitch, whine, moan, and desire their "stolen" money back, in direct opposition to what Jesus instructs.

No, He never instructed us to not voice political views, including the view that our own decisions about which needy people to help are wiser and more legitimate than those of da gubmint.

Things now are so desperately out of whack that I can't see any way back. The Great Unwashed have been taught for generations to suck at the gubmint teat, the Church has been lulled into allowing da gubmint to take its role, and the average Joe is told to spend, spend, spend to keep the economy afloat, at the same time being taxed so heavily he has little left to voluntarily give, and, seeing how easy some "po' folk" have it, little motivation.



They are the ones who are harshest in their judgment of the poor (they're "lazy," "stupid," "unmotived," "leeches," etc).

Yeah, well, a lot of them ARE. I've known some who worked hard and smart, and got on their feet, and I really admire them. I'd even say I somewhat envy their perseverance and achievement. I've seen plenty of others who barely recognize a bar of soap, think that every sort of cleavage imaginable should be on permanent display, crap out babies like Pez dispensers, and think the world owes them a nice, comfortable life.

--------- Due to size-of-post restrictions in the software, end of Part 1 ------

[Norrin Radd]

-------------- Part 2 ------------------------

Indeed, if everybody was truly living a Christian lifestyle according to Jesus' teachings, the government would have nothing to do with it: the citizenry would enact communism on its own, and give on its own to make sure that not one, single American was suffering due to economic or materialistic hardship.

Ironically, the two things Jesus railed about in the gospels most of all were judging others and hypocrisy. Who are among the most judgmental and hypocritical lot among groups in America? The Christian Right, of course... Homosexuals and abortion doctors beware, Christians have made you public enemy number one because they have "judged" you to be immoral, even though Jesus didn't speak one iota on the alleged evil of homosexuality and abortion, both of which were common in his time and had been for many thousands of years.

He loosened several parts of the Torah, including Sabbath worship and food laws. He did NOT say anything diminishing the OT laws against sodomy nor against acts that would harm the unborn, and in fact endorsed the Law in general. If it weren't for Paul, we'd have to conclude that slavery was still to be normative.



He did, however, frequently teach to keep your judgments to yourselves

But He did include "repentance" as part of the message His followers were to preach, and praised His cousin John the Baptist -- who boldly preached voluntary sharing AND preached against extortion and abusive taxation.



and to live the Christian life instead of just talking it, but Christians have ignored these emphases of Jesus.

The rich are particularly hypocritical, since not only are they ignoring the aforementioned teachings of Jesus, they go through all kinds of rationalizations to deal with Jesus' very clear statements about hording wealth instead of sharing it.

If you wish to be perfect, go and sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come follow me....In truth I tell you, it is hard for someone rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Yes, I tell you again, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for someone rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven. (Mat. 19:21-24)

Again, it's useful to consider things in context.

First of all, if we start several verses before the ones you quoted, we see Jesus said this to a specific individual, in response to a specific question: "What good thing must I *do* to gain everlasting life?" Jesus replied that the man must "obey the Commandments," and went on to cite several, BUT OMITTED AT LEAST ONE. He did NOT cite, "Do not covet." He DID include, "Love your neighbor as yourself." The man claimed to have kept all the ones Jesus cited, and Jesus did not dispute his claim. THEN He told the man to divest of everything. His reluctance revealed that his own point of failing was "covetousness."

Second, if we continue *after* the part you quoted, we find a *general* promise (as opposed to an individual one) that those who do so divest will be recompensed with "interest," so to speak -- again showing that some degree of self-interest is acceptable.




Whoever wrote the epistles to Timothy (probably not Paul, in this case, even though it is attributed to him) carries on this anti-rich position with the famous line: The love of money is the root of all evils'... (I Tim 6:10)

The context is much more balanced and nuanced than you make it appear. He commands sharing and condemns trusting in wealth and using godliness as a means to gain (literally, "money-getting"). He also says that godliness IS a means of GREAT money-getting, and notes that God RICHLY gives us things for our ENJOYMENT.



Christians, particularly the rich ones, will try to rationalize these in a lot of ways. Some will nit-pick on what "eye of a needle" means, claiming that it can't really mean a needle, since a camel could not pass through the eye of a literal needle. Duh, that is kinda Jesus' point! They will, however, rattle on with silly nonsense about archways too short to allow packed camels to pass that were called "eye of the needle," never really refuting Jesus' point, especially since he clarified it by basically saying to sell everything and give away all of the money.

Hmm, well, I'm probably "rich" by some standards, even though I don't think I can afford some of the luxuries some Welfarites have. Anyway, as you saw, I found no need to argue about needle-eyes, since your failure to address context was a sufficient target.



To the second verse, they will point out that "the love of money" is the root of all evil, not money, but a) it is a strawman when they offer it to me, since I NEVER leave out the "love" part,

What is NOT a straw man is that you DO leave out the contrary parts of the passage, as I noted.



... and two: show me a rich person that doesn't love their money and material possessions? If you have a monstrous house that is more than you need, a garage full of ten or more different cars, and you are aware that some are starving or can't afford to pay their bills, you love your possessions (and money) more than your starving "neighbors," and therefore can't possibly be loving your "neighbor as yourself"! If you allow people to die you could have saved with your money, you love your money more than people, period.

Empirically speaking, around here unemployed people on various forms of gubmint assistance can easily have more "stuff" than their working counterparts.

Scripturally speaking, you are hammering a point that Jesus Himself did not make, and in fact may even be contradicting Him. As I noted, He did not dispute the young man's claim to have obeyed the Commandments, including "love your neighbor...," AND He promised that those who gave up things would be repaid with MORE things -- material things -- and the parallel passage in Mark says, "NOW, in THIS time."



The fact that most US Christians honor both Jesus' birth and capitalism on the same day of the year shows the height of this "unholy alliance." I think Jesus would be more disgusted with this nation than Yahweh was with Sodom & Gomorrah. After all, what is worse in Jesus' eyes: "unnatural sex" that he didn't speak of one iota, or failing to help those in need, which he preached ad nausem about?

So when Fundies say America may have deserved 9/11 as a divine judgment, they're wacko fanatics, but when you say the Yellowstone caldera should erupt into a supervolcano and roast us, that's fine?



Considering that Jesus was unemployed during his ministry (at least according to tradition), and depended on the charity of others to live day-to-day so he could perform his "duties," and considering how he railed against materialism over compassion

He did seem to like the occasional nard-rinse in preference to helping the poor, however.



(as well as against judgment and hypocrisy), and considering that he is often portrayed as frequently scraggly and unkempt (which would make sense with his lifestyle), I am quite sure that the right-wing Christians of the US would crucify him all over again if he came today and didn't identify himself in any way as "Jesus." That "bleeding heart liberal" preaching against greed, materialism, and indulgence in modern America would be sneered and derided by those who claim to follow him!

Could you not picture the sight when he went to some well to do "good Christians'" home asking for lodging or food? "Get out of here you filthy commie bum, and get a job!!" I'm sure that would be a common response.

For some who have seen the parasites who have more worldly goods than many hard-working people, or who previously opened their homes to the "poor helpless refugees" from Katrina, that would be an understandable response.

[Marduk]

One of the biggest puzzles in my mind is how US Christians reconcile their adherence to both Christianity as the best religion and capitalism as the best system. There is no question that Jesus would find the idea of capitalism repugnant. What's worse, US Christians for the most part have been successfully brainwashed to hate communism, and even to associate it with atheism and downright Evil. Now, I'm not advocating one system over the other in this post, simply demonstrating how logic dictates that Jesus would most definitely support communism over capitalism.

Stranger still, the furthest right wing of our political landscape in the US is characterized by the most ardent and fundamentalist Christian believers AND the staunchest foes of not only outright communism or any form of socialism, but even against the welfare state! Fascinating stuff...

The earliest Christians, including the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, recognized that Jesus would support a "communistic" economy over a "capitalist" one (I use parenthesis because obviously they had no names for these systems at that time), and the author of Acts pens the first account of a communistic society led by the apostles! It is mentioned twice:

And all who shared the faith owned everything in common; they sold their goods and possessions and distributed the proceeds among themselves according to what each needed. (Acts 2:44-45, emphasis added)

The whole group of believers was united, heart and soul; no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, as everything they owned was held in common...None of their members was ever in want, as all those who owned land or houses would sell them, and bring the money from the sale of them, to present to the apostles; it was then distributed to any who might be in need. (Acts 4:32 & 34, emphasis added)

Wow, they are virtually quoting Marx almost 1800 years before he was born! So why would most US Christians of today be so against the form of "government" that ruled over the earliest Christian community? How can communism be "evil" if the apostles found it a system of economics most in accordance with Jesus' teachings? Of course the apostles would choose a communistic lifestyle, as that is the only lifestyle that is FULLY consistent with Jesus' teachings. Most Christians would argue that the apostles, since they allegedly knew Jesus, would most know what he would teach and believe in. They choose a communistic lifestyle because it is the only lifestyle, again, truly and fully consistent with Jesus' teachings.

Indeed, not only was the early Church communist, but it was more akin to Soviet communism than the caricature of Marxist communism. It is believed that Marx though communism would lead by example, with no need for force. Obviously, Soviet-style communism had a different idea. Which most resembled the communism of the apostles?

There was also a man called Ananias. He and his wife, Sapphira, agreed to sell a property; but with his wife's connivance he kept back part of the price and brought the rest and presented it to the apostles. Peter said, 'Ananias, how can Satan have so possessed you that you should lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of your land?... You have been lying not to men, but to God. When he heard this Ananias fell down dead. And a great fear came upon everyone present....About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had taken place. Peter challenged her, 'Tell me, was this the price you sold the land for? 'Yes,' she said, 'that was the price.' Peter then said, 'Why did you and your husband agree to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Listen! At the door are the footsteps of those who have buried your husband; they will carry you out too.' Instantly she dropped dead at his feet... And a great fear came upon the whole Church and on all who heard it. (Acts 5:1-11)

So lack of economic compliance is punishable by death, even for keeping only a "part," and that results in fear among the rest of the population so they will not be so inclined in the future. Sounds a lot like totalitarian communism. So why is communism so bad, even forced communism, according to Christian teachings?

But what did Jesus himself have to say on the subject of economics? Obviously he didn't discuss economic system per se, but his teachings imply which system would be most fitting in his eyes.

To anyone who slaps you on one cheek, present the other cheek as well; to anyone who takes your cloak from you, do not refuse your tunic. Give to everyone who ask you, and do not ask for your property back from someone who takes it... And if you lend to those from whom you hope to get money back, what credit can you expect? Even sinners lend to get back the same amount. Instead, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend without any hope of return. (Luke 6:29-35, emphasis added)

Some defenders will ignore key points of this statement and say that these verses still put choice in the believers hand, whereas taking taxes and giving it to the poor as welfare is "theft." Jesus wouldn't support that, they would argue, even though Jesus explicitly said "do not ask for your property back from someone who takes it," and basically says to give more to the thief that robs you than he has already taken. So Jesus would not qualify that the believer is to be judicious and give only when they see fit: You should help ANYBODY according to Jesus.

"I don't want to support deadbeats who aren't contributing and who are taking advantage of the system," many will argue. Jesus clearly didn't limit his admonishment to help others only to those we found "worthy" or "contributing members of society," he said give even to the thief, and makes it clear that there is no qualification about who is worthy. Even "sinners" make judicious decisions about what to do with their money, Jesus would argue based on the aforementioned quote, so believers must give to ALL and ANYBODY who needs it.

As far as taxes being bad or "theft" as right-wingers claim, Jesus had the opportunity to condemn taxes, but what did he do instead? He said pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar--and God what belongs to God. (Luke 20:25) Clearly, Jesus didn't condemn taxes, and furthermore, even if he thought it WAS theft (which he never indicates), he taught in the earlier quote I offered from Luke that we shouldn't be concerned enough with material things to want our stuff back when it is stolen, and should simply be happy that the "thief" is being helped.

Additionally, Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself. (Mat. 22:39) If you TRULY love everybody else equally to how you love yourself, you would want them to have everything that you have, at least in matters of well being. You wouldn't want them to go hungry, because you wouldn't want that for yourself. You wouldn't want them to be unable to pay their medical bills and go into crushing debt, because you wouldn't want to have that happen to you and yours.

If everybody in a society TRULY lived by the motto "love your neighbor as yourself," we would have a communistic society. If all Christians in the US alone (85% of the population) lived by this maxim, then none could sleep at night knowing there was economic suffering on behalf of their neighbors. Any Christian who isn't keeping just enough of his or her income to be comfortable, and giving the rest to help others, isn't living by Jesus' maxims. Actually, I'm being generous, because nothing in Jesus' teachings said "make yourself comfortable first, THEN help others," and indeed I would suspect he would advocate self-sacrifice for others: so truly Christians shouldn't even keep enough to be comfortable: just enough for them and their families to survive. If that was the result, clearly most Christian income (again, 85% of the population) would be tied up in the community so others would not go without, which would be some form of socialism at the very least.

As the US population ever in its' entire history done anything even REMOTELY like this? Of course not, and that is why the government had to MAKE the population help the poor through welfare so the poor wouldn't get poorer and some might be able to rise out of it, as well as to prevent be mass homelessness, rampant crime, and untold suffering, starvation, and death for millions of Americans. What has the "Christian" right-wing done ever since? Bitch, whine, moan, and desire their "stolen" money back, in direct opposition to what Jesus instructs.

They are the ones who are harshest in their judgment of the poor (they're "lazy," "stupid," "unmotived," "leeches," etc). Indeed, if everybody was truly living a Christian lifestyle according to Jesus' teachings, the government would have nothing to do with it: the citizenry would enact communism on its own, and give on its own to make sure that not one, single American was suffering due to economic or materialistic hardship.

Ironically, the two things Jesus railed about in the gospels most of all were judging others and hypocrisy. Who are among the most judgmental and hypocritical lot among groups in America? The Christian Right, of course... Homosexuals and abortion doctors beware, Christians have made you public enemy number one because they have "judged" you to be immoral, even though Jesus didn't speak one iota on the alleged evil of homosexuality and abortion, both of which were common in his time and had been for many thousands of years. He did, however, frequently teach to keep your judgments to yourselves and to live the Christian life instead of just talking it, but Christians have ignored these emphases of Jesus.

The rich are particularly hypocritical, since not only are they ignoring the aforementioned teachings of Jesus, they go through all kinds of rationalizations to deal with Jesus' very clear statements about hording wealth instead of sharing it.

If you wish to be perfect, go and sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come follow me....In truth I tell you, it is hard for someone rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Yes, I tell you again, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for someone rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven. (Mat. 19:21-24)

Whoever wrote the epistles to Timothy (probably not Paul, in this case, even though it is attributed to him) carries on this anti-rich position with the famous line: The love of money is the root of all evils'... (I Tim 6:10)

Christians, particularly the rich ones, will try to rationalize these in a lot of ways. Some will nit-pick on what "eye of a needle" means, claiming that it can't really mean a needle, since a camel could not pass through the eye of a literal needle. Duh, that is kinda Jesus' point! They will, however, rattle on with silly nonsense about archways too short to allow packed camels to pass that were called "eye of the needle," never really refuting Jesus' point, especially since he clarified it by basically saying to sell everything and give away all of the money.

To the second verse, they will point out that "the love of money" is the root of all evil, not money, but a) it is a strawman when they offer it to me, since I NEVER leave out the "love" part, and two: show me a rich person that doesn't love their money and material possessions? If you have a monstrous house that is more than you need, a garage full of ten or more different cars, and you are aware that some are starving or can't afford to pay their bills, you love your possessions (and money) more than your starving "neighbors," and therefore can't possibly be loving your "neighbor as yourself"! If you allow people to die you could have saved with your money, you love your money more than people, period.

The fact that most US Christians honor both Jesus' birth and capitalism on the same day of the year shows the height of this "unholy alliance." I think Jesus would be more disgusted with this nation than Yahweh was with Sodom & Gomorrah. After all, what is worse in Jesus' eyes: "unnatural sex" that he didn't speak of one iota, or failing to help those in need, which he preached ad nausem about?

Considering that Jesus was unemployed during his ministry (at least according to tradition), and depended on the charity of others to live day-to-day so he could perform his "duties," and considering how he railed against materialism over compassion (as well as against judgment and hypocrisy), and considering that he is often portrayed as frequently scraggly and unkempt (which would make sense with his lifestyle), I am quite sure that the right-wing Christians of the US would crucify him all over again if he came today and didn't identify himself in any way as "Jesus." That "bleeding heart liberal" preaching against greed, materialism, and indulgence in modern America would be sneered and derided by those who claim to follow him!

Could you not picture the sight when he went to some well to do "good Christians'" home asking for lodging or food? "Get out of here you filthy commie bum, and get a job!!" I'm sure that would be a common response.

What are you talking about? Jesus & the right are two peas in a pod;
Just take a few examples, gun control, Jesus was a gun lover if there ever was one, I can see Rambo Jesus ripping his hands from the cross as Peter tosses him an AK, starts blasting the Romans;
From the Book of Armaments 12:13 “Blessed is the Mini Gun, for its impressive kill ratio”
Also from the book of Armaments 17:36 “Napalm sticks to little kids”
And Health care, I’m sure Jesus would scoff at commie Universal health care, “For the Insurance companies shall profiteth in the land of Goshen” As for Social Security, Medicare and all that liberal crap, old people and the poor; “Fuck that noise, sayeth the Lord, drag them out on the highway and use their bones for paving material” The first thing Jesus said Easter Morning “I love the smell of napalm in the morning, smells like victory” :)

[Norrin Radd]

... Jesus & the right are two peas in a pod;
Just take a few examples, gun control, Jesus was a gun lover if there ever was one, I can see Rambo Jesus ripping his hands from the cross as Peter tosses him an AK, starts blasting the Romans;
From the Book of Armaments 12:13 “Blessed is the Mini Gun, for its impressive kill ratio”

He did endorse sword-ownership, as I'm sure you know. If there'd been a "National Swords Association," He might have had a membership.



Also from the book of Armaments 17:36 “Napalm sticks to little kids”

He loved kids of course, but He never did repudiate the OT occasions where He or His Father commanded genocide.



And Health care, I’m sure Jesus would scoff at commie Universal health care, “For the Insurance companies shall profiteth in the land of Goshen”

He wouldn't endorse dishonesty and oppressive profiteering. Under the Old Covenant, "usury" was regulated, and provisions were made for "gleaning." But he'd see nothing wrong with profit-making per se, even if it some might consider it "unfair."



As for Social Security, Medicare and all that liberal crap, old people and the poor; “Fuck that noise, sayeth the Lord, drag them out on the highway and use their bones for paving material”

I think He'd commend you if you wanted to voluntarily donate money to help out my family, but I don't think He'd demand you do it at the point of the government's sword. I'm pretty sure He'd favor the government lowering its expenditures enough to allow people to more easily provide for themselves and their own futures and families.



[quote] The first thing Jesus said Easter Morning “I love the smell of napalm in the morning, smells like victory” :)

Probably smells sort of like the Lake of Fire, where His enemies ultimately end.

[Worldtraveller]

Christian theology and right-wing capitalism do have some overlap in values, depending on what theology is considered.

For instance, Calvin's doctrine of predestination has some symmetry with the conservative notion of "if you're poor, you deserve it; if you're rich, you deserve it." Calvinists might consider material success as sign that one may have spiritual or moral success.

There's also the idea of personal salvation and the "Protestant work ethic". This is the idea that salvation can only come about through personal piety rather than a collective membership in a church. Likewise, conservatives believe that prosperity can only come about through individual industry and hard work rather than collective institutions.

Please don't misunderstand; my argument isn't that U.S. Christians don't even try to justify their hypocrisy, I'm well aware of that, my argument is that they are ignoring those clear teachings of Jesus that totally oppose their position (and arguments they use to rationalize their position).






But whether you like it or not, American Conservatives give the most to charity. So it's not like they're stingy in their charity under a capitalist economic system.

Because Obama didn't give anything to charity and yet he was campaigning all that bleeding heart liberalism and yet his pockets weren't reflecting his own mantra about taking care of peeps.

(I hope I got that right, we were just discussing this over at CF so I might need to go back and get the stats, but I'm pretty sure it was revealed that he didn't give jack to charity.)
WTF are you talking about? His tax return was posted right here (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=1360).

Page 28 is where the charitable donations are. That comes out to about 7% of his gross income to chartity.

[VoxRat]

It seems to me there are a lot of people for whom right-wing politics and Christian fundamentalism are inseparable. I'm really curious, for instance, about the pedigree of this "Obama gave nothing to charity" meme.

[BWE]

It seems to me there are a lot of people for whom right-wing politics and Christian fundamentalism are inseparable. I'm really curious, for instance, about the pedigree of this "Obama gave nothing to charity" meme.

Michael Savage? Glen Beck? Rush Limbaugh?

Another equally dishonest charlatan? :)

It's weird that people who believe falsehoods also believe in falsehoods.

[SallyAnne]

His tax return was posted right here (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=1360). Page 28 is where the charitable donations are. That comes out to about 7% of his gross income to chartity.



I just went back to the Conservative Christians forum on CF where they were discussing it to find out why I was led to believe that he didn't. They had links too.

But the entire thread is missing, so I can't get the information that was being discussed over there regarding this. :confused:

Maybe they were criticising the paltry crappy amount and that he was only giving 1% between 2000 and 2004 on a salary of over $200k, that's probably what it was (because that is jack).

[SallyAnne]

It seems to me there are a lot of people for whom right-wing politics and Christian fundamentalism are inseparable. I'm really curious, for instance, about the pedigree of this "Obama gave nothing to charity" meme.

It was Conservative Christians criticising Obama's bleeding heart liberalism and raising the tax on earnings over $200k, when he was giving jack squat in comparison to Conservative Americans. They had stats of givings from Conservatives compared to him and his was zilch in comparison. They must have been referring to his paltry charity giving between 2000 - 04 when he only gave 1% but will now raise taxes on others who earn over $200K.

I wish I could find the thread over there but the whole site went down for about a week and now some threads are missing.

[VoxRat]

You honestly think that you can conclude that "Conservative Christian Americans" are more "charitable" than Obama from the available data???

Or are better humans???

Or more "Jesus-like"???

[SallyAnne]

You honestly think that you can conclude that "Conservative Christian Americans" are more "charitable" than Obama from the available data???

Or are better humans???

Or more "Jesus-like"???



It was nothing about being "better humans" or more "Jesus-like," it was the political argument of forcing people to give more by raising tax on earnings over $200k, when Obama benefitted from lower taxes and gave only 1% in charity. Expecting others to pay more in taxes when he didn't and wasn't very charitable himself, they expected his charity givings to be through the roof based on his "help others - share the wealth" mantra.

They had statistics on Conservatives giving more to charity than bleeding heart Liberals, yeah.

[Worldtraveller]

You honestly think that you can conclude that "Conservative Christian Americans" are more "charitable" than Obama from the available data???

Or are better humans???

Or more "Jesus-like"???



It was nothing about being "better humans" or more "Jesus-like," it was the political argument of forcing people to give more by raising tax on earnings over $200k, when Obama benefitted from lower taxes and gave only 1% in charity. Expecting others to pay more in taxes when he didn't and wasn't very charitable himself, they expected his charity givings to be through the roof based on his "help others - share the wealth" mantra.

They had statistics on Conservatives giving more to charity than bleeding heart Liberals, yeah.
I'd double check those 'statistics' if I were you. I'm just saying.

And I know a lot of 'bleeding heart' liberals who give a lot more to charity in terms of time and work than conservatives with money who donate to make themselves look good, but don't have to get their hands 'dirty' helping the homeless and whatnot. So be wary of that broad brush yer slingin around.

[SallyAnne]

You honestly think that you can conclude that "Conservative Christian Americans" are more "charitable" than Obama from the available data???

Or are better humans???

Or more "Jesus-like"???



It was nothing about being "better humans" or more "Jesus-like," it was the political argument of forcing people to give more by raising tax on earnings over $200k, when Obama benefitted from lower taxes and gave only 1% in charity. Expecting others to pay more in taxes when he didn't and wasn't very charitable himself, they expected his charity givings to be through the roof based on his "help others - share the wealth" mantra.

They had statistics on Conservatives giving more to charity than bleeding heart Liberals, yeah.
I'd double check those 'statistics' if I were you. I'm just saying.



I wanted to do exactly that, I went back there to get all the information which I was going to post here for all of you to examine, but unfortuantely the thread is missing. The site went down for a week and a lot of threads have gone bye-bye....

[SallyAnne]

And I know a lot of 'bleeding heart' liberals who give a lot more to charity in terms of time and work than conservatives with money who donate to make themselves look good, but don't have to get their hands 'dirty' helping the homeless and whatnot. So be wary of that broad brush yer slingin around.


huh? This thread is slinging a broad brush against Conservative Americans, the OP is basically saying that they don't represent Christ under a Capitalist system, so who is really trying to paint a one-sided view of things? You're not criticising the OP, why not? Conservatives are not as uncharitable as the OP is trying to make out just because they don't want to be forced to pay higher taxes.

[VoxRat]

It was nothing about being "better humans" or more "Jesus-like," it was the political argument of forcing people to give more by raising tax on earnings over $200k, when Obama benefitted from lower taxes and gave only 1% in charity. Expecting others to pay more in taxes when he didn't and wasn't very charitable himself, they expected his charity givings to be through the roof based on his "help others" mantra. First of all I, for one, suck at keeping track of what I give to charity. I guess if I were running for president, and everyone expected me to make my tax returns public, I'd make a real effort to make sure it looked "noble".

But this is such bullshit. You don't know if Obama was any better at keeping track of these things than I am. You don't know what demands there might have been on his income. I, for instance, have to pay a lot for the special needs of a special needs child. I also don't enter the amount of time, and blood, and non-monetary contributions I give to charity on my tax returns.

Secondly, Obama is raising taxes on himself. In the past, he benefited from the Bush tax cuts, just like all those fatcat republicans did. In the future, he will "suffer" along with them.

Thirdly, the threshold is $250,000, not $200,000.

Finally, it sure as hell sounds to me like these Oh So Holy Conservative Christians are accusing someone of hypocrisy. Whatever happened to that "Judge not lest ye be judged" thing? Wasn't that Christianity? Or am I thinking of some other religion?
They had statistics on Conservatives giving more to charity than bleeding heart Liberals, yeah.Really. They had some way of assigning people to the "bleeding heart Liberal" category?

Or are you one of those people who thinks "not conservative" and "bleeding heart liberal" are synonymous?

Luke 6:37-38

[SallyAnne]

Finally, it sure as hell sounds to me like these Oh So Holy Conservative Christians are accusing someone of hypocrisy. Whatever happened to that "Judge not lest ye be judged" thing? Wasn't that Christianity? Or am I thinking of some other religion?



Oh, I see, so the OP here is allowed to use the teachings of Christ to judge Conservative Christians via his page long thesis pointing out why Communism is Jesus preferred economic system. But Conservatives are not allowed to point out the political discrepency between Liberals and themselves.

So it's only Conservatives who are hypocrites because they give to charity under a Capitalist system, but Liberals are not because they want to raise taxes and force everyone to "share the wealth."

[VoxRat]

Oh, I see, so the OP here is allowed to use the teachings of Christ to judge Conservative Christians via his page long thesis pointing out why Communism is Jesus preferred economic system. But Conservatives are not allowed to point out the political discrepency between Liberals and themselves.First of all, as far as I'm aware the OP is not a Christian, therefore not particularly bound by Christian rules of behavior.

Secondly, the OP did not point out that "Communism is Jesus preferred economic system".

Thirdly, "conservatives" can do whatever they damn well please. But "Christians" are supposed to be slow to judge others. Of course, some of us seem to feel that "conservative" and "Christian" are synonymous.

So it's only Conservatives who are hypocrites because they give to charity under a Capitalist systemRight. That's what I wrote. That conservatives are hypocrites "because they give more to charity under a Capitalist system" :rolleyes:

First of all, I think you need to look a lot more critically at the data that supposedly show conservatives to be more charitable than liberals in general.

Secondly, how about we pick one prominent Conservative Christian - say, Rush Limbaugh? - to compare tax returns with the one prominent non-conservative you all have decided to judge?

but Liberals are not because they want to raise taxes and force everyone to "share the wealth."Individual "Liberals" may or may not be "hypocrites". But, no. "Liberals" as a group are not "hypocrites" for favoring a system where taxes pay for public assets.

Like I said, I really wonder whether some of these "Christians" are right-wingers first, and "Christians" only secondarily.

[SallyAnne]

Like I said, I really wonder whether some of these "Christians" are right-wingers first, and "Christians" only secondarily.


Well, yeah, I have felt that way myself about the RR that's why I could never identify with them. But having come to know a few of them, they're not only Christians secondarily and take their faith seriously.

[David B]

Like I said, I really wonder whether some of these "Christians" are right-wingers first, and "Christians" only secondarily.


Well, yeah, I have felt that way myself about the RR that's why I could never identify with them. But having come to know a few of them, they're not only Christians secondarily and take their faith seriously.

Taking faith seriously might not be considered entirely a good thing.

The guy I quoted in another thread took his faith rather seriously, but, then again, so did Augustine.

“Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should, in fact, be segregated as they are the cause of hideous and involuntary erections in holy men.”

And so did Aquinas That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell.

As did Calvin God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation.

Is taking faith seriously a good thing?

David (doesn't think it a good idea, himself)

[SallyAnne]

Like I said, I really wonder whether some of these "Christians" are right-wingers first, and "Christians" only secondarily.


Well, yeah, I have felt that way myself about the RR that's why I could never identify with them. But having come to know a few of them, they're not only Christians secondarily and take their faith seriously.

Taking faith seriously might not be considered entirely a good thing.



I meant in not merely being right-wingers first and Christian second. I do believe they are Christians first but they are political too.

[VoxRat]

I meant in not merely being right-wingers first and Christian second. I do believe they are Christians first but they are political too.That's nice.
I don't.

[SallyAnne]

I meant in not merely being right-wingers first and Christian second. I do believe they are Christians first but they are political too.That's nice.
I don't.



LOL!:D Ok, fair enough.;)

[Joykins]

Re: donations to charity, it is my understanding that when religiosity is accounted for, what you're really seeing is a pattern of religious people giving more to charity, regardless of conservative/liberal alignment; there are just more religious conservatives than religious liberals.

I do not know if most of the donations to charity made by religious people are made to their own churches. I do know that the majority of mine are.

[DMB]

Part of the trouble with adding up amounts given to "charity" is that the large sums given for proselytism count as "charity".

[VoxRat]

Part of the trouble with adding up amounts given to "charity" is that the large sums given for proselytism count as "charity".
Great! That way us taxpayers - even us atheist taxpayers - get to share in the glory of spreading God's Word!