The Bible: capitalist or socialist?

[Gypsum_Fantastic]

Well, is it?

Every morning on Radio Scotland I'm subjected to a succession of dreary folk, from all faiths, using the 'Thought For The Day' slot to bang home their tedious views on the G8 summit, globalisation, etc. All of them seem to assume that God, or Gods, is left-wing and a deffo socialist, if ever there was one.

But Jesus wasn't an employee of some state-owned bureaucracy. He was a self-employed businessman. So is the Bible pro-capitalist or pro-socialist?

[ANDY-J3]

The moral teachings of Christ,if not the bible in general,teach the doctrine of the brotherhood of man which is the concept that underpins the more liberal forms of socialism,so some parts of the bible are socialist in nature but I think for the most part its teachings tend to promote capitalist ideals and the maintenence of the social order.

[PRgirl]

How about just emphasizing universal human rights for all?

Instead of playing hate on the next religion that is not yours or on people who have doubts about if God exists or not?

The problem with all 'labeling' is that each Christian Sects interpretation of Christ can be different from another's interpretation. Some believe poverty is being Christ like, others wealth means God is pleased. Some believe in the immaculate conception, others deny the importance of Mary, so on and so on.

Some believe only through Christ one is saved. Others believe that there are many holy ones through human history. Therefore if peace and not bloody wars are to be the future of religious differences in human culture a universal rights for humanity would be imperative.

Like this:

http://christian-bible.com/Ethics/Ri...fhr.global.htm


In terms of socialism vs. capitalism in Christianity. You have obvious divisions of interpretation of what it means to lead a holy life. You have vows of poverty. Liberation theology. Socialistic in many ways. Then you have evangelicals protestant fundamentalist sects like Robert Schuller and others who believe in the Protestant Ethic of through hard work and so on, God gives you rewards, prosperity etc. You got atheist Communists who believe religion is a way of feeding opium to the masses so that the majority who are not owners of the means of production are zombies who allow the rich and the greedy capitalist owners in their positions and allows exploitation of humans by elite humans to continue unchallenged. In other words, religion is a way of social control and keeping the status quo and therefore is not progressive but a roadblock to human class struggle.

Then you have capitalists who believe God favors some group over another because the ones who are not following God's laws have poverty and misery, corruption and chaos as punishment. God Bless America....etc. etc. America is wealthy only if they follow God. If they don't. Sodom and Gommorrah is coming for America.

Then you have third world Christianity. In which poverty is the result of lack of morality and decadence and that employment and basic needs not being met is the result of not enough faith in Christian principles and sin, and God turns his back on those who don't obey. It has nothing to do with living in the third world and all that implies.

So many 'reasoning' of why the world is in the state it is today.

You must choose what paradigm of Christ you will follow as a supposed "Christian". The one in which God favors the wealthy and the powerful (and the wealthy and powerful) are not the puppets of a mundane world run by Satan.

sorry i made a mistake and hit the wrong button read the next post instead.

[Edited by PRgirl on 23rd June 2005 at 17:44]

[PRgirl]

Originally posted by PRgirl
How about just emphasizing universal human rights for all?

Instead of playing hate on the next religion that is not yours or on people who have doubts about if God exists or not?

The problem with all 'labeling' is that each Christian Sects interpretation of Christ can be different from another's interpretation. Some believe poverty is being Christ like, others wealth means God is pleased. Some believe in the immaculate conception, others deny the importance of Mary, so on and so on.

Some believe only through Christ one is saved. Others believe that there are many holy ones through human history. Therefore if peace and not bloody wars are to be the future of religious differences in human culture a universal rights for humanity would be imperative.

Like this:

http://christian-bible.com/Ethics/Ri...fhr.global.htm


In terms of socialism vs. capitalism in Christianity. You have obvious divisions of interpretation of what it means to lead a holy life. You have vows of poverty. Liberation theology. Socialistic in many ways. Then you have evangelicals protestant fundamentalist sects like Robert Schuller and others who believe in the Protestant Ethic of through hard work and so on, God gives you rewards, prosperity etc. You got atheist Communists who believe religion is a way of feeding opium to the masses so that the majority who are not owners of the means of production are zombies who allow the rich and the greedy capitalist owners in their positions and allows exploitation of humans by elite humans to continue unchallenged. In other words, religion is a way of social control and keeping the status quo and therefore is not progressive but a roadblock to human class struggle.

Then you have capitalists who believe God favors some group over another because the ones who are not following God's laws have poverty and misery, corruption and chaos as punishment. God Bless America....etc. etc. America is wealthy only if they follow God. If they don't. Sodom and Gommorrah is coming for America.

Then you have third world Christianity. In which poverty is the result of lack of morality and decadence and that employment and basic needs not being met is the result of not enough faith in Christian principles and sin, and God turns his back on those who don't obey. It has nothing to do with living in the third world and all that implies.

So many 'reasoning' of why the world is in the state it is today.

You must choose what paradigm of Christ you will follow as a supposed "Christian". The one in which God favors the wealthy and the powerful (and the wealthy and powerful) are not the puppets of a mundane world run by Satan.

Satan runs the world. And Christians are in it but not OF it. And all gov'ts are corrupt and not loving of God. Keep out of politics like the Jehova Witnesses believe. Or if you are some Southern Baptist like Clinton, or methodist Episcopalian like Bush, you believe in being born again and politics is just part of Christ's plans for humanity. You got the whole ball of wax of interpretations.

I think it is simple. If you are truly unselfish and think of others first and all nations are God's children regardless of belief or level of material acquisitions or lifestyles--then socialism is the right way. If you believe in class divisions and exclusivity for only individuals of wealth and the less wealthy deserve their lot in life--then you are a capitalist. Which is more spiritual in a real sense? SOCIALISM without question. If Christ believed in using his power for worldly gains he would have accepted Satan's temptations and gone for being a powerful king. Christ was a progressive not a conservative. If he believed in perpetuating the same system he was born in, he would never been such a controversial figure. He would have complied with the Jewish Rabbis and the Roman law, and left no change on the religious doctrines of his times.

[Edited by PRgirl on 23rd June 2005 at 16:58]

[Gypsum_Fantastic]

The very first verses of the Bible have economic consequences. Man falls. Because of that fall, the earth rebels against him and ceases to provide him with food and sustenance ‘as of right’ —*as socialists say. Man must make a living. There is no suggestion that God, or the state, will intervene and replace nature as provider. Here we have the earliest example of a non-interventionist economic policy.

There is no bias against wealth and wealth-seeking as such. Quite the opposite. ‘He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand: but the hand of the diligent maketh rich’ (Proverbs x 4). Private property is protected. There is no advocacy of state ownership. Even monarchs are not allowed to expropriate property. In I Kings xxi 18,19 God punishes King Ahab because that monarch — with his wife Jezebel egging him on — allows Naboth to be stoned to death and seizes Naboth’s vineyard. God does not attach importance only to the murder. He causes Ahab to be asked, ‘Hast thou killed, and also taken possession?’ Ezekiel xxxxvi 18 rules: ‘The prince shall not take of the people’s inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession’ —*a passage upholding not just the right of property but the right of the property owner to decide who inherits it.

Christ and the New Testament share these beliefs, which should be unsurprising since Christ specifically says in Matthew v 17 that He has come not to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfil them. But by His time, the land of the prophets is Roman-occupied. Nonetheless, Christ believes that peace and order necessitate obedience to Roman law where it is just. Thus Roman taxes must be paid. The Pharisees try to trick him into saying something subversive on that point: ‘Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?’ (Matthew xxii 17). It is then that Christ tells them to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s —*namely, taxes. But he does not take the opportunity to advocate taxation as an instrument of redistribution.

Then there is that defence of the investment market: the parable of the talents (Matthew xxv 14–30). Before going on a journey, a presumably rich man gives five talents to one servant, two to another, and one to a third. The one with the five ‘traded’ with them, and made five more. The one with two similarly gained another two. ‘But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.’ The returned rich man, hearing of the first two’s wise investments, says to both in turn, ‘Well done, thou good and faithful servant.’ But the third is admonished for sloth, and told —*in the greatest of all endorsements of the money markets —*‘thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers’. The slothful servant is ‘cast into outer darkness’.

In the parable of the hired servants (Matthew xx 1–16), a vineyard owner hires labourers for a penny a day. He hires some early in the morning. But, judging that more work could be done that day, he hires more later. Those hired early complain that those hired late are paid at the same rate. The vineyard owner asks: ‘Didst thou not agree with me for a penny?... Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?’

The parable is a defence of free contract. The early labourers received what they contracted to receive. Their anger at what the others received is understandable, but the vineyard owner had the right to take account of changing economic circumstances, and correct his earlier judgment about how much labour he needed for that day. State regulators, or trade unions, would have insisted that the earlier be paid higher. But the vineyard would then have hired fewer next time, with unemployment as a possible result.

[Scottish_Republican]

Jesus said to give all your money to the poor, and not to store up riches on Earth where moths and rust get to them. He also said it was nigh impossible for rich men to enter Heaven.

Hardly the words of a capitalist.

[Gypsum_Fantastic]

Originally posted by Scottish_Republican
Jesus said to give all your money to the poor, and not to store up riches on Earth where moths and rust get to them. He also said it was nigh impossible for rich men to enter Heaven.

Hardly the words of a capitalist.

Cultural norms. In Jesus' day, rich people were revered (please, no smart alec comments about this still being the case) and it was assumed, certainly by the disciples, that the wealth they had acquired in this world would go with them into the next life. Jesus was simply making it clear that this was not the case and that it was behaviour, faith and character that counted more than possessions (whether you had plenty or none).

Jesus was no proponent of poverty, disease and starvation, I assure you. Jesus did not hate wealth - he had wealthy friends - but disliked a love of money which, as he said, could alter someone's behaviour so radically that spiritual progress would be nigh impossible.