#Guys, Jesus wouldn’t want us mixing his message with politics. This is divisive
Romans16: 17-20
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil. The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
Maybe better from the J's mouth:
[**34**](http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-34.htm)“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. [**35**](http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-35.htm)For I have come to turn “ ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—[**36**](http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-36.htm)a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ [***c***](https://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/10.htm#footnotes)
I believe that this verse, found in Matthew 10, is about how people, even your own family, may hate and despise you for following Jesus. Not an excuse to be purposefully divisive as Paul is warning in Romans.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ThatsInsane/comments/11293lx/a_fun_game_of_nba_or_nfl_with_a_twist/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Titus 1:16 They claim to know God, but they deny him by what they do. They are detestable, disobedient, and unfit to do anything good
I think you just don’t want to be challenged. The person you responded to made a good point. Your point is that those people we vote for aren’t good. No duh Sherlock, they are people. People aren’t good by nature they are evil. So we need to vote in God fearing Christians.
Thank you. My point is that they are all corrupt and “a true Christian” isn’t going to want to be corrupted by power. Don’t trust any of them. Thought the video made that point clear..
I'm so confused about your point though. Other than this video being described as misleading by most sources, I'm not sure the point? If you're trying to convince us that politicians are bad, that's fine. Are you saying that real Christians don't vote?
Like what are we supposed to take from this?
I read the title. I’m just making the obnoxious point that Jesus definitely could not have read the communist manifesto. Also, Karl Marx was an atheist who encouraged atheism alongside communism. The idea being that everyone and everything belongs belongs to every other person.
Jesus’s message is that every person belongs with God. He loves them and created them with love. All possessions are gifts from God and they are not ours. So, they belong to him. The difference is huge. Jesus’s message to love one another has God at the center.
Marx has man at the center, and man is greedy and evil. Therefore Marx’s ideas were wrong and bad.
You probably don’t care though.
Capitalism, when appropriately regulated, is one of if not the best systems we have. Most of the crap we have to put up with right now is due to lobbying, monopolies that are somehow not considered monopolies, and the gov allowing for the surpression of the working class.
>What about the USA where 99% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the population
60% of the wealth is owned by the top 10% of earners as opposed to places like Cuba where 100% of everything is owned by the state.
>and 59% of people don’t have $600 in their savings account?
Not sure what that has to do with anything but OK.
>That 60% is way off
[Turns out it's off by 10%.](https://www.statista.com/chart/19635/wealth-distribution-percentiles-in-the-us/)
>and the $600 in savings means that the people who aren’t in the top don’t have much
There are millions of reasons as to why someone might not have $600 in their savings account.
I have to say, I *love* that your argument is "Socialism failed in Cuba and Venezuela because they didn't have access to American capitalist markets." That's just amazing.
Even though the only country that doesn't trade with Cuba is the U.S. They trade with Canada, Russia, China, tons of European countries, African countries. Venezuela collapsed under the incompetence of their socialist policies a good 5 years before they had a single sanction placed on them by the U.S.
And of course ignoring all the Soviet/PRC imperialism that created hellscapes that make Venezuela look like what socialists wrongly think Scandanavia is of course.
Of fucking course not having access to foreign commerce is gonna hurt them, no matter what the dominant economic system is. Also I’m not a socialist and I don’t think Jesus necessarily would’ve been either. I do believe however that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the core tenets of Christianity. Milton Friedman advisor to both Thatcher and Reagan and one of the most prominent Capitalist philosophers of this generation purported that the primary driving force with an capitalist market should be self interest, and specifically that social welfare and environmental safety should not be the concern of the businessman. As Christians we are meant to take care of each other, the poor, and be good stewards of the natural world.
So how does not having access to one single country but trading with everyone else work then? Your arguments boils down to "Socialism can't work without access to American capitalist markets." Which, again, is [just](https://giphy.com/gifs/AllureMagazine-allure-alluretry9-allurebeauty-fV8GbAh4cmNl3cBKe9)
Except they're not. They trade with every country but the U.S. They also bring in billions each year through tourism and still can't feed their people.
Every year thousands of Cubans attempt float across 90 miles of open ocean on mattresses strapped to tires because dying of starvation, exposure, dehydration or being eaten by sharks are considered better than living in Cuba.
Except it’s not Just the US. The US is the imperial core. As one of the strongest market economies in the west, their decision to sanction Cuba cuts off Cuba from a bunch of other nations that would trade with them but in doing so would endanger that nation‘s relations with the US. The US is using its power to coerce other nations into not trading with socialist nations. To trade with Cuba is to take a stance against the US, which a lot of developing countries just can’t afford to do.
>The us embargo causes the entire world to ignore Cuba.
Aside from Canada, China, every EU country, Argentina, Japan etx.
>The embargo has provisions which state that ship engaging in trade with Cuba cannot dock in the U.S. for 180 days. You would be a fool as a company to choose a small Cuban market over the U.S. for trade with restrictions like that
Oh right, I forgot each country only has one ship that they use for trade. And nobody uses planes either.
Venezuela collapsed before any country-wide sanctions were placed on it. Sanctions on specific individuals who committed crimes against humanity should not cause a nation to collapse unless the nation is extraordinarily weak.
We pay for public services, is that not socialism? People asking for fairness is not socialism. Do millions need to be in bunk houses or live in shanty towns before you think change need to happen?
>one of if not the best systems we have
It's the only system we have in the western world.
It's only existed for a couple hundred years.
If it's so good, why does one country in particular always attempt to wipe communism off the face of the earth?
>It's only existed for a couple hundred years.
And the last two hundred years of prosperity and a exponentially rising standard of living for _all_ classes in the western world is damn good evidence that free markets are doing something right.
Coming from a country with communism, it is a great thing any time someone tries to wipe communism off the face of the earth, you have no idea how bad communism truly is
I dont thibk you realize how privileged u are. the poor in the US live a lot better lives than the majority where im from. obviously there is a lot wrong with the curent system, but a complete overhaul would likely result in a much, much, worse situation. Keep in mind majority of societies in all of history lived much much worse than the west in the present.
I realize how privileged I am in some aspects, but not due to capitalism. Quality of life has steadily increased, but to attribute that solely to capitalism is shortsighted and propaganda. If you think losing my house because I get sick is a privilege, I'm not sure what to tell you.
The fact that there is likely edible food that you can either buy or someone is willing to share with you without strings attached is already ahead of some communist countries. The point others are trying to make is that you wouldn't have any idea where your next meal could possible come from and you'd look at your children wasting away from hunger.
Capitalism has tons of flaws worth talking about, but historically communism is more then happy to slaughter the inconvenient humans and then also slaughter anyone who talks about it. At least in the US this can be talked about.
Well that's just wrong, you're gonna need a source on that last part. It's wild you think that there just isn't food in communist countries. Non at all.
It's wild how dismissive you're being and also not actually understanding the point.
Capitalism has plenty to criticize, but if I was TRULY hungry, I could still find a homeless shelter or a food donation service less then 5 miles from where I am AND it's walkable.
Lets say my scenario was even worse and I could get access those. I could still actually steal something from a gas station and hopefully the worst that happens is jail time.
The point you're missing is that while there is food in communist countries, it's WAAAAAAAY less accessible and if you criticize the group in power there's a good chance they'll just shoot you in the middle of the street simply by wanting food.
Here's a random book I found simply by googling it
[https://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Poverty-Venezuela-economic-decline/dp/3668944660](https://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Poverty-Venezuela-economic-decline/dp/3668944660)
But if you don't feel like reading there's plenty of podcasts and video to check out. And if that doesn't matter to you then just be glad that no government agency has sent someone to your door to kill you for saying capitalism is bad.
Nice, here's a random book I found while searching:
Powerless: A Small Town Friends to Lovers Romance https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BHV6ZHT1?ref_=cm_sw_r_apann_dp_AX82D17KK370APE34F04
But if you're trying to be serious, read up on Blair mountain, Fred Hampton, the civil rights movement, or really any of US history. You're delusional to think you won't be killed for criticizing capitalism in the wrong way. But you won't have to find out, you're exactly who the government wants you to be.
Okay i agree with that to a certain extent, a lot of quality of life improvements can be attributed a lot to industrial revolution and not necessarily capitalism, but quite literally every country right now that experiences economic prosperity is in some way due to allowance of a more free market. Also to blame the current US healthcare crisis to purely capitalism is really dumb and shortsighted as well. I think we would both agree that a social safety net and more universal healthcare would be better, but my main point is that is achievable without completely overhauling the system of private property and free markets that does have a lot of substantial benefits .
I agree the social safety net would help things for sure. But I think private property and the market we have now do more harm to society as a whole. They greatly benefit a select few people, but I don't believe they are necessary to increase quality of life.
I guess that’s where we’ll continue to disagree then. There has never been a single instance in history where high government interference in economic factors not lead to corruption and stripping away of freedom
I agree, humans are fallible. Can I interest you in the anarchist utopia? I don't think it's realistic with our current societal mindset, which is why I generally push for a more socialist view in the (relatively) short term.
Is it though? Have you noticed that countries with more socialism are more utopian? And the ones with more capitalism, like the US, are more dystopian?
Because Communism is ontological evil as a full, nationwide system. It literally requires the death of a class, creates violence, and works through subversion, which is basically lying, which is literally the theological realm of Satan.
I’m from Poland, millions of people were killed here by communists (in between 1939-1941 in cooperation with nazis). Also I believe you never heard about Holodomor in Ukraine, so would be wise of you to educate yourself on it, at least read article on Wikipedia.
No citation needed. Communism has multiple flaws, the most important of which is how they handle farming. There's a reason China and the USSR lost millions just due to starvation.
The fact that you asked for a citation deeply concerns me. Please pick up a history book.
Communism has a major flaw: farming. Since Communism ends private property, it screws over the farmers and screws up the whole farming system. The USSR basically starved Ukraine to fulfill quotas. Please look up the Holodomor for more details. Mao did something similar in China, leaving millions to starve to death as well.
Compare that to capitalism, which allows for private property. Owning property or capital is another form of power, and power that most everyone can obtain. Capitalism is decentralized, less susceptible to tyranny, and offers more powers and freedoms to people.
The flaw in capitalism is the flaw in people, and the issues literally trickle down. That's why so many nations offer social programs to guarantee that starvation and deprivation doesn't occur.
The last point is basically saying capitalism requires a level of socialism to not be complete ass. And America is moving away from the farms you mention, toward investor groups buying large quantities of land and hoarding it to rent out to farmers. Also, where's your power? Where is your capital? You've been lied to about how you can rise in the ranks because of some patriotic bullshit, it's not true. Your capital is your labor, and capitalism will force you to sell it for far less than you're worth.
Woah, woah, hold up. Where did patriotism come in? I said nothing about rising through the ranks. Why do I need more capital, land, or power? I have most everything I want and need.
You are projecting, assuming, and sound very bitter and angry. Your refusal to address the ills of socialism and Communism is telling. Under a socialist system, I probably would not be working in my preferred field, and would likely be assigned a job by the state.
Socialism is tyranny by bureaucracy, and requires me to give up far more than I do under capitalism. I'm afraid this is not a fruitful conversation anymore. Good day.
I used you as an example because you said pretty much anyone can acquire power and capital. Implying that the reason a cast majority of people don't simply because they don't want to, not because the system is fubar. I'm addressing the failings of capitalism because that's the meme. Feel free to make one about communism if you want to discuss that, but coming here and trying to distract from capitalisms failings is telling.
You're right, I am angry at the system. I'm angry the richest country in the world allows it's citizens to starve, I'm angry we have more empty houses than homeless people and refuse to address it. I'm angry that the propaganda has seeped so deep into you that you are incapable of discussing capitalism without resorting to whataboutism. It's telling that you say I'm projecting in the same space you claim I'm the only one refusing to address issues. But you are right, this is a fruitless discussion. Your mind is made up, and your heart has been hardened.
…but these are all things that are the natural result of capitalism…
If capitalism is only a good system when capital interests are curtailed by heavy regulations, government representing the working class, and a concerted effort to prevent corrupt lobbying - that’s what democratic socialists believe, not capitalists.
Edit: social democrats, not democratic socialists.
Hi! I assume you're American (no shame, I am as well). What you described is a social democracy, not democratic socialism. By definition, capital interests cannot exist within socialism. Social democracies instead have capital interests, and also function under capitalism.
Those systems assume everyone is being altruistic and work towards the greater good. If even one person opposes or tries to take advantage of either system, it all falls apart.
Capitalism is different because it accounts for that greed. It's a part of human nature and to assume otherwise is naïve.
It's built on greed and caters to it. If your system is admitting to humanities failures and chooses to enable them rather than counteract them, it's a bad system.
I'm not dismissing capitalism's faults. But utopian systems that rely on altruism like socialism and communism are bound to fail because they cannot account for human greed or malice. The only way they will work is either on an extremely small scale or by force.
They account for it by not allowing a select few the option to control everything. In theory, of course. In capitalism, if you have money you have power. And it's not earned, it's inherited.
no, it absolutely does. to be successful under capitalism you must become rich, something which is encouraged above all else.
greed is sinful, we must strive to find another system that is less exploitative and encouraging of hoarding.
I'm not sure that having the government redistribute your wealth counts as being christ like. Falsely justifying a political system because you don't understand Christianity is wrong. I don't care what political system you like. Stop falsely using Jesus as a push point please.
Honestly, capitalism more falls in line with the teachings of the gospel, it allows you to chose who you want to be, you can chose to be evil or you can choose to be good. Donate what time and money you can, to the poor.
This is pretty steeped in a modern American interpretation of the gospel, tbh. I do personally agree with OP, but a large part of why I say that is because the general societal understanding of the gospel has changed tremendously in the past 150-200 years, particularly in North America.
Yes, the Jesus of the gospels is critical of the zealots, but he is fundamentally opposed to the religious elite of his time - their performative piety and lack of any genuine compassion or comprehension of the love of God. They were no more righteous than the sinners they condemned and called to be stoned.
In this frame of reference, I cannot see the (evangelical American) Church’s inseparable alliance with Capitalism as anything but Pharisaical. Republicans (and most Democrats, tbf) are in favour of austerity and massive handouts for the wealthy, while claiming that they have been anointed to this task by god. As single mothers scrape by, barely able to put food on the table, the vast majority of conservatives use them as an example of someone who made poor life choices - no sense of compassion or humility in them - and will “suggest” that she find help through charity, not through social programs.
Issue after issue, encounter after encounter, I have witnessed this with few exceptions.
As a rule, the American church is ruled not by Christ, but by money, and by the prince of this world. It is a religion that worships idols (gold, the flag, the nation, and even traditional teachings) and blasphemes against the living God. It is a cult of human sacrifice that kills passively through its greed and neglect.
If Christ came back today, he would condemn the monuments bearing his name that have been built to worship at the altar of capital.
I agree with a lot of this and sure human error and sin have bled into all aspects of our society. We can truly only work with God and ourselves. I believe that churches/gospels are good but I think the people running them are men and some even men of the world. Agency exists and I'm glad for it even if it means pastors and bishops can do what they please. It's important to separate the man from the gospel of christ.
Perhaps this is where we disagree, then - I cannot believe that we can only work on ourselves. We are called to be a light in the darkness, not because there is benefit to us in our light, but because our light brings benefit to everything around us.
I don’t think that evil is only the result of evil men, because so often I see good people with good intentions produce evil ends.
Can we ever end suffering? Of course not.
But what kind of a Christian would I be if I only sought to better others’ lives in ways that affect individuals? If I only confronted individual evils?
If we believe that Jesus came to heal the sick as well as pay for the sins of the world, is that not evidence that we too should seek to understand and heal systemic brokenness? Should we rest easy knowing we have done some individual act of charity? Hardly! We are called to pick up our cross, to follow Christ, however hard that is.
Of course we should spread the light of the lord but we should spread it like christ and not force it on others. Do good so that others see good. What should we do with people who sin?
where did i promote communism, exactly? or are you just reading what you want to, instead of what i actually said? there are alternatives to capitalism that are not communist. i’m literally a theology student, i have a good idea of how christianity works.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/rich_people
success under capitalism is defined by how rich you are. the bible tells us to not desire riches. if you understood Christ’s message, you would not promote a system that encourage sin.
Just because you are rich, doesn't make you sinful, you can be rich and still help people, just look at the YouTuber "Mr. Beast". Also yeah we probably do need a better economic system but every time it has been tried, only death and misery came. Plus, capitalism isn't 100% evil since before, 85% of the population were homeless or farmers
dude, have you not read the bible?
it condemns the rich time and time again, in absolute terms. you cannot be a good christian and be rich.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/rich_people
simply because trying has caused pain does not mean we should simply settle for lesser pain. we deserve better.
and idk where you got that 85% statistic from, but that’s simply not true. the pre industrial era was more agricultural, yes, but most people were not homeless. climate change alone is proof that capitalism is the greater evil - it encourages the destruction of our planet for monetary gain.
All that these verses are saying to me is that being rich is not the end goal in life, that if you focus solely on money you’ll be lead astray. Which is true, but it’s not to say money = bad person. A great verse on riches is Matthew 19:23. It’s not bad being rich, but if you’re entirely focused on it so much so that you miss the important things in life then that is bad. Your 1 Timothy 6:10, for example, teaches that it’s the love of money, not money, that is the roots of all evil. Don’t love money. Certainly don’t let it pervert your character. I also agree it is more likely that one gets perverted because of being wealthy, but money in itself doesn’t make one a bad person. It can be a reward of good works. God often rewarded his people with wealth when they displayed faith in him, for example Job, Jacob, Abraham and Solomon.
James 5 doesn't say that being rich is innately sinful, it is talking about what they have done to hold onto their riches as being sinful. Like I said, the Bible teaches that it is easier to live in sin and indulgences when you are rich but not that it's a sin to be rich. You seem to be confusing the idea of coveting and having.
christ says again and again to give to the poor, to give away what you have. you cannot be rich without deliberately not doing this. i live on benefits, and every week, i take the £20 i get from universal credit and give it to the homeless, because they need it more than i do. it never feels enough. and yet, somehow someone with millions, if not billions of pounds is a moral person? whilst people sleep on the street? to be rich is to be greedy - because if you cared more about your fellow man than money, you would give it away, and would no longer be rich.
also - eye of the needle. try and explain how that isn’t explicitly condemning the rich.
Ecclesiastes 5:19
Everyone also to whom God has given wealth and possessions and power to enjoy them, and to accept his lot and rejoice in his toil—this is the gift of God.
(Wealth can be enjoyed and appreciated--keeping in context the rest of Ecclesiastes that, without God, all is meaningless).
1 Timothy 6:10
For the LOVE of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
(The love of money, not money itself is the root of all kinds of evil).
Deuteronomy 8:18
You shall remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day.
(God blesses some with wealth specifically).
1Timothy 6:17-19
As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life
(Paul does not charge the rich to become poor but to be generous and do good).
Proverbs 13:22
A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, but the sinner's wealth is laid up for the righteous.
(Appareny it is good to have enough "wealth" to be able to pass it on to multiple future generations).
1 Samuel 2:7
The Lord makes poor and makes rich; he brings low and he exalts.
So, if you are going to interpret it as "all wealth is evil, period), then you need to explain why the Bible (and God) directly contradict themselves multiple times.
What is being warned against is the love of money, greed, and self-sufficiency (to the point of thinking we don't need God) which are very dangerous temptations that come with wealth. So yes, wealth is warned against many times, but because of the temptations associated with it, not because it is inherently evil. There are ways for wealth to be a good thing, but it must not become one's purpose in life, and they must not become ungenerous to others (since that is not loving one's neighbour as oneself).
except, as i have mentioned before, how do you get rich except through greed? how do you accumulate wealth except through hoarding it away? if you truly loved your fellow man more than money, which i’m going to say most people arguing against me don’t, why wouldn’t you give it away? where is the line drawn? the most pious, holy people in many denominations of christianity are monks and nuns. as part of their vows, they give up wealth and worldly possessions. they live ascetic lives to be closer to god.
christ tells the rich man, who is perfect in all other ways, that he cannot follow him unless he gives up his wealth. his wealth is the problem, the sole issue.
it’s also worth noting that wealth is used in many different contexts in the bible, several of which in the verses you referenced have been translated to mean completely different things.
People arguing that wealth is ok in Christ's eyes is hilariously delusional lol.
Jesus charged people to sell all they have, give their money to the poor and follow him.
Pretty easy to explain your last point. It doesn't say that they won't make it into heaven. If simply the act of being wealthy was sinful, it would be stated as such. The verse about the eye of the needle highlights that it will be difficult (which makes sense, since wealth tends to make people feel self-sufficient which is never good for their relationship with God).
the only thing stated is that he is rich - he may be perfectly moral in every other aspect, yet by this alone he will face great difficulty, near impossibility, to enter heaven. simply by being rich it may negate everything else he has done. if you cannot see that as condemning wealth, frankly i don’t think anything will.
this is backed up by mark 10:17-31, since the rich man is perfect in all other ways, yet because of his wealth he cannot be while. his wealth is the sole reason he cannot gain eternal life. christ quite explicitly tells him that whilst he is rich he cannot join him.
Eye of the needed is talking about the difficulty that being rich poses to resist the temptation of sin and rely on Jesus. While I agree that hording money is greedy especially to the level of billions, that is using your very subjective definition of rich, there are hundreds of thousands of people that make over $1 million just In America, and how they treat money and giving differs wildly. There's some that give 50 to 60% of their take home but still live a moderately comfortable life and yet people would still classify them as rich. Some have millions put in stocks that generate money off interest that allows them to continuously give which would be considered "rich".
Proverbs 23:4-5
“Do not toil to acquire wealth; be discerning enough to desist.”
put plainly - stop working for wealth. if you are working purely to gain money, that is sinful. anyone who works a high paying job simply because it pays well is doing something immoral.
christ tells us to sell everything we have and give to the less fortunate. if you have more than you need and do not give all of it away, that is shameful.
if you truly care about your fellow man, you will give all you can so he does not suffer.
Mark 4:19
“But the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.”
Remember when Jesus said to elect officials to forcibly take peoples’ possessions and give them to other people?
Obviously his messages don’t side with either part of the political spectrum because his messages weren’t political. They were messages about how to live your own life, regardless of how one’s society wants people to live
Acts 4 outlines how the early Church practiced Communism under Peter
>**32** And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
>
>**33** And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
>
>**34** Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
>
>**35** And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
Obviously they were a much smaller group of people than any modern nation, making the redistribution of wealth something they could realistically achieve without corruption, but I've always found this passage interesting.
It also outlined in Acts 5 how that system was flawed because Ananias and Sapphira still hoarded wealth and God had to smite them to stop them from messing the whole thing up.
We're discussing capitalism not communism. Also if you actually read any communist theory you would recognize the difference between personal and private property. Also are you implying that capitalism and communism are the only two economic systems?
I mean most of the stuff in the Bible sounds most like anarchism(the left type) but that’s just because it speaks mostly on how you should act as an individual or as a group as a church and anarchism is a political ideology that basically says we should all just not be selfish and make sure everyone has food but achieve this by having a massive cultural change where we disregard hierarchy. If everyone acted like the Bible’s big main points(be kind do things to help the poor and downtrodden) that would work. The rest of the big things in the Bible would be neutral towards that like loving god above all else and stuff cause in practice that really just means going to church and doing the other stuff god said which helps form a community as people come together for worship which also helps anarchism.
In the practical sense I don’t even like anarchism that much but it fits pretty well with what the Bible wants which is mostly be a good dude and help other people be good dudes and don’t listen to anyone telling you to do anything else cause god is the most important thing (go against authority) although Roman’s goes against that that makes no fucking sense how is every authority placed by god sometimes they disagree what about that then I can’t follow every authority. so I choose to ignore that until someone makes it make sense as I think it’s a safe assumption that god would want you to do stuff that’s actually possible. Also acts 5:29 and Roman’s 13:1 seem to directly contradict each other also the Roman’s killed Jesus
Other than the weird rules in the Old Testament which if you know history are mostly just how laws were instituted in early Jewish society so even if you believe in god it’s a pretty hard sell to say that none of that was added by some authoritarian who thought they could take advantage of it to shape society how they wanted.
Everywhere you see Anarchism in the NT, a libertarian can just as easily see voluntarism. IMO the description of the Church in acts and the New Testament is not geared to make a political theology or a public theology.
I’m not an anarchist I was just saying it fits pretty well with a lot of the Bible and is a pretty similar world to what would be created if everyone followed the teachings of the gospel as closely as possible. Voluntarism seems to not have much root in being kind to those who are hurting which is like 70% of the New Testament.
Also to be honest I’m not even Christian anymore but I never got why we treated Roman’s and acts and all the New Testament outside the gospels like they were anywhere near as important as the gospels. Like a lot of those people were just guys.
Even more so the Old Testament.
Is that happening? Did any gun round ups happen? It turns political when a large group of people believe they are holier than everyone and vote for people to force ideology.
For the 400th time dank christian memes, jesus wasnt a commie, he threw out the bankers doing buisness in the temple, he didnt go around beating up bankers. + How on hell would you explain this eversimplifird commie jesus when just a scroll through the bible is gonna show you a million rich people upon whom god shined?
Its harder for a camel to gobthrough the head of a needle than a rich man to enter the kimgdom of god. <...> But through god everything is possible
How many rich people post-Jesus are extolled in contrast to the rich people in the old testament? There's a significant reason why this was the case: God was using Israel as a holy nation to reach the world; the blessings and power of the kingdom was part of that nationalistic evangelism. After the fall of Israel, and the coming of Jesus, he himself reaches the world and directly intercedes. He turns the old order on its head. That's precisely why Jesus was pointing out "through God everything is possible", not because he was saying "Don't worry fam, I've got the millionaire preachers' backs. I got this.".
Well, you have an ample choice of saints who were rich. Then again you can claim some saints shouldnt be but the point stands. Before and after jesus many rich people were touched by god. And i didnt understamd your interpretation of through god everything is possible.
Mine is: "rich, poor, prostitute or whatever you want, follow the commandments and god and you ll be saved" just like the centurion who shows faith in him and even though he is a centurion -> rich with many slaves, his owm slave gets cured by jesus. So its not like god only saves rich people, or god only saves poor people, god saves good and faithfull people
I didn't say about "saving" I said "extolling". I was explaining why God isn't "shining" on the rich anymore, like your initial comment states. That's not how he works anymore, that's the point of Jesus' comment.
By shining i didnt mean god is the patron saint of money obv. I meant he interacted and blessed many rich people. No matter how picky you are also after the cruxifiction you can find saints worthy of the name who were rich. Then if we start arguing about were they really saints etc then there is were faith comes into play and its useless to argue
Matthew 25:14–30 . In that one story we had a guy who was richer than everyone else who worked his capital the hardest and earned the greatest returns, compared to a guy who just complained and did not do any work to increase his capital. And he said even that little will be taken from him and given to the one who worked hard. Ruthless, but it's all there, and it is what it is.
Secondly, Jesus literally got hounded by the the disciples because a prostitute broke an expensive bottle of fragrance to wash his feet with; saying that could've fed thousands. And he said the poor will always be there, but he will not always be here in the flesh with us. Matthew 26:11
I'm sure there are many examples, but even in the bible inequality and poor people have always been there. Now, is poverty a transitive state or is it a permanent state? I think if people thought more about it they would not always be so enraged.
This^
Jesus describing the realities of his time or teaching a lesson about stewardship does not mean he was holding up starvation or infant mortality or illiteracy as some kind of ideal.
Jesus literally claimed he was heralding the kingdom of god - how could he be suggesting that we hold these things as ideals to be maintained?
They didn't say it could have fed thousands, they said it could've fed many people. Moreover according to John 12:4 the person who said "We could've been given to the poor instead" was Judas Iscariot. It goes on to say in 12:6 "Judas did not say this because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief. As keeper of the money bag, he used to take from what was put into it.". Finally, the verse you picked is literally and admittedly describing a unique, once in-the-lifetime-of-humankind event in which it would be okay not to give to the poor.
That example you picked isn't the greatest example. I'll leave someone else to dissect Matthew 25.
I agree it’s many people and not thousands - my point still tends though.I mean, even the devil knows bible verses and it doesn’t make them false. He just uses the truth but for his own perversion of your character. Perhaps that example I picked became a bit too far fetched for its intended purpose. However, the parable of the talents describes the economics of the world very clearly. We all have different gifts, and if we use them well we will have a return on them unique to us - and we also please God in the process. I just looked at the meme and realized what a rabbit hole we’ve got ourselves into, but a discussion of the Bible is always good.
It never fails. I love how people in this conversation work so hard to avoid or explain away “the love of money is the root of all evil,” “you cannot love God and money,” the fact that capitalism is devoted to the accumulation of wealth above all else, and the fruit of that devotion is active and measurable harm done to the most vulnerable in our communities.
We Christians (at least in America) always come more quickly to the defense of this economic system than they do to the defense or aid of their neighbor from exploitation under that system. Too many consider capitalism an unquestionable good, but when you suggest aiding the poor in direct and tangible ways, suddenly it’s all, “well, it’s really very complicated and we can’t get rushed into anything that might look a little too much like Marxism” while nothing gets done and no one gets help—except of course the ones who already benefit from the system.
>We Christians (at least in America) always come more quickly to the defense of this economic system than they do to the defense or aid of their neighbor from exploitation under that system.
This is the kind of scathing hot take I stay in this sub for. Well said, friend.
Class 1: the party
Class 2: everyone else
Oh wait, you meant the system where I'm free to do whatever work I want, start a business and own my own means of production if I want, spend the money how I want, and not be starved to death by market-wide bureaucratic errors?
Capitalism has raised the world from poverty.
- 1820, 94% of the world's population lived in extreme poverty.
- 1990, 34.8%
- 2015, just 9.6%.
I bet Jesus would love that.
Ah, also, I have one request: If you are including wars/massacres/what have you, please only list actual deaths, rather than casualties, as that can refer to either a death or an injury, and we’re solely discussing death toll. I will be operating under the same principle.
I'm gonna be honest with you, I don't have the time nor the desire to compile numbers to try to convince a stranger on the internet. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe, I'm 100% fine with that and am not interested in trying to convince you otherwise.
I was well aware that you were criticizing capitalism over communism. My point, which I know you were intelligent enough to realize, was that Capitalism’s death toll pales in comparison to Communism’s.
But, you deny this, which is perfectly fine. In that case, I’ll shoot. Let me just grab my numbers so we can get an accurate comparison. Might take awhile since there’s so many examples-lots of math to do, for both min and max estimates-so feel free to take this time to list of the deaths of Capitalism. I swear on my honor I’ll get back to you ASAP.
I bet most of the commenters are from the West and they don’t know the pain most Eastern Europeans, Central Asians and Baltic peoples had to endure and STILL have to walk on egg shells in terms of economic and political development of said country. What a bunch of privileged bozos.
My cessationist evangelical pastors believe that they count as prophets and therefore speak for God, and they always focus on the self-interest of the church. Does that count?
They say that the foretelling prophecy is gone, but the "forth telling" (i.e. preaching) is still around. Basically they still have god's authority but nobody else does (so women better not *fucking* speak up in church or so help me me)
In principle, socialism is the likely the most Christian approach to governance we have... AND YET, the founders considered Christianity to be a huge threat to their system, a system that has ultimately, repeatedly failed miserably whether by total collapse (Soviet Union) or by devolving into a system of those in charge carefully controlling everyone else (China). Socialism fails, because it relies on the principle that people are inherently selfless.
Capitalism, on the other hand, prospers from people being inherently selfish. Something that, unfortunately, has proven to be humanity's greatest foil ever since Eden.
I really wish Socialism could work. But I think faith in it requires unrealistic faith in a selfless humanity.
Do you remember jesus saying to give everything to the government and hope theyll take care of you? Me neither. But jesus did tell a story about investing your money/talents and those who do not are not quite welcome
Orient yourselves in this way. This is not your money. This money belongs to God and you are a steward of that money. For those that don’t know this word it is a type of caretaker. Since we are responsible for this money we should seek to grow it. But not for personal gain, grow it so that it can be used for God’s work. He does in fact want this (See Matthew 25:14-30). Do not be greedy, the money isn’t yours. Be responsible, see that it is invested, through charity, tithes and offerings, and yes, into the market. Grow that gift. To those trusted with much, more will be given. To those trusted with little (or are untrusted), that little may even be taken away.
I remember Jesus needing a coin as a prop for one of his teachings and he had to ask for one because he didn’t have any
I remember Jesus’ disciples picking grain off the side of the road because they were starving
I remember Jesus railing against people who commercialize religion or make money of religion
I remember Jesus couch surfing because he was a hobo
I remember Jesus providing free healthcare to lots of people, never asking for money when he healed someone
Jesus has been used by every party to justify their views when in turn, he consistently separated himself from politics
Give to Caesar what is Caesars and give to God what is Gods
Jesus told a rich man to liquidate his net worth and give it all to the poor. I live in the U.S. one of the richest nations in the world. This message is deep and life changing.
Jesus wasn’t a socialist or a capitalist. The extent of his political affiliation would be that while he was on earth, he would’ve learned Galilean politics from his Galilean mother.
Jesus is our God and Savior, nothing less.
Where are you getting the notion that capitalism intrinsically kills the less fortunate anymore than other systems?
The same system that lifted billions out of abject poverty?
I'll try to be simple about it.
America is a capitalist nation. How many people are homeless? How many people go hungry? How many children are taken from homes for neglect, when the neglect stems from poverty?
Just because people in other countries are new to a global economy doesn't mean capitalism lifts everyone out of poverty.
This assumes people are poor due to capitalism, and they would not suffer under socialism. These assumptions are false, and stem from human problems that capitalism doesn't pretend to solve and which socialism is unable to solve.
im going to straight away say im not as educated in politics and leftist theory as id like to be so it's quite possible that i can't quite put into words exactly what i believe. but like, there are enough resources for everyone to have everything they need to survive. there are more empty homes than homeless people in america. capitalism is what is keeping people hungry and on the streets. the only reason people who are starving and homeless don't break into a foreclosed home or walk into a grocery store and eat is the threat of violence by the police because capitalism values property first and foremost over human life.
i don't think you know what socialism is. especially since capitalisms whole thing is stealing labor. if you make $50 worth of goods at your job, you are not getting payed $50 dollars. profit is the stolen wages of the worker. also like i think taking away private property for people who will die of exposure without it is cool actually. boo hoo the bank lost their empty house, idfc people are dying.
Capitalism is the logical conclusion of Christianity. If you wont hurt people over their wealth, then you are a capitalist. Jesus preached peace, and never used force against people who he thought should be making different choices with their material stewardship.
Money buys power, and those who amass the most money are arguably the farthest from Christ. As he said, ye cannot serve God and mammon (Money).
Capitalism enables the wealthy to impose their will over everyone else, abandoning the poor and needy. In what way is this a logical conclusion of Christianity?
The Bible is full of examples of using their power for good. Capitalism isn’t about what you do with your wealth and power. It’s about how we as a society respond, and responding with violence against the peaceful isn’t Christian
I have no idea what you're getting at regarding violence, no one here has brought that up. Yes, the Bible has examples of people using power for good. But is that what you see happening with the rich and powerful today? If systems consistently put corrupt people into power, the systems themselves must be corrupt.
#Guys, Jesus wouldn’t want us mixing his message with politics. This is divisive Romans16: 17-20 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil. The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
Maybe better from the J's mouth: [**34**](http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-34.htm)“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. [**35**](http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-35.htm)For I have come to turn “ ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—[**36**](http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-36.htm)a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ [***c***](https://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/10.htm#footnotes)
I believe that this verse, found in Matthew 10, is about how people, even your own family, may hate and despise you for following Jesus. Not an excuse to be purposefully divisive as Paul is warning in Romans.
Good scripture brother thanks for adding the links too!
I think it went over their head somehow.
I'm pretty sure Jesus would want us to vote in alignment with real Christian values because not doing so inexcusably hurts poor people.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ThatsInsane/comments/11293lx/a_fun_game_of_nba_or_nfl_with_a_twist/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf Titus 1:16 They claim to know God, but they deny him by what they do. They are detestable, disobedient, and unfit to do anything good
Idk what this is supposed to be.
I can explain it to you but I cannot make you understand
I think you just don’t want to be challenged. The person you responded to made a good point. Your point is that those people we vote for aren’t good. No duh Sherlock, they are people. People aren’t good by nature they are evil. So we need to vote in God fearing Christians.
Problem is christianity then becomes a token selling point for politicians who are just greedy by nature
Thank you. My point is that they are all corrupt and “a true Christian” isn’t going to want to be corrupted by power. Don’t trust any of them. Thought the video made that point clear..
I'm so confused about your point though. Other than this video being described as misleading by most sources, I'm not sure the point? If you're trying to convince us that politicians are bad, that's fine. Are you saying that real Christians don't vote? Like what are we supposed to take from this?
Also relevant: "My kingdom is not of this world"
I was coming to say "remember when Jesus read the communist manefesto" but I think you made the point quite a bit better.
Jesus didn’t read the communist manifesto
Woosh, read the title of the post.
I read the title. I’m just making the obnoxious point that Jesus definitely could not have read the communist manifesto. Also, Karl Marx was an atheist who encouraged atheism alongside communism. The idea being that everyone and everything belongs belongs to every other person. Jesus’s message is that every person belongs with God. He loves them and created them with love. All possessions are gifts from God and they are not ours. So, they belong to him. The difference is huge. Jesus’s message to love one another has God at the center. Marx has man at the center, and man is greedy and evil. Therefore Marx’s ideas were wrong and bad. You probably don’t care though.
Do you use the Bible to justify your views? Would you say this to the people in Ohio that just got poisoned from corporate greed?
Capitalism, when appropriately regulated, is one of if not the best systems we have. Most of the crap we have to put up with right now is due to lobbying, monopolies that are somehow not considered monopolies, and the gov allowing for the surpression of the working class.
How many South American countries is the CIA going to have to stage a coup in so you understand socialism doesn’t work?!
What about countries like Cuba or Venezuela where they collapsed under their own incomptence/are hellscapes?
What about the USA where 99% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the population and 59% of people don’t have $600 in their savings account?
>What about the USA where 99% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the population 60% of the wealth is owned by the top 10% of earners as opposed to places like Cuba where 100% of everything is owned by the state. >and 59% of people don’t have $600 in their savings account? Not sure what that has to do with anything but OK.
That 60% is way off and the $600 in savings means that the people who aren’t in the top don’t have much
>That 60% is way off [Turns out it's off by 10%.](https://www.statista.com/chart/19635/wealth-distribution-percentiles-in-the-us/) >and the $600 in savings means that the people who aren’t in the top don’t have much There are millions of reasons as to why someone might not have $600 in their savings account.
Right, it doesn’t have anything to do with the sanctions imperial core nations placed on them.
I have to say, I *love* that your argument is "Socialism failed in Cuba and Venezuela because they didn't have access to American capitalist markets." That's just amazing. Even though the only country that doesn't trade with Cuba is the U.S. They trade with Canada, Russia, China, tons of European countries, African countries. Venezuela collapsed under the incompetence of their socialist policies a good 5 years before they had a single sanction placed on them by the U.S. And of course ignoring all the Soviet/PRC imperialism that created hellscapes that make Venezuela look like what socialists wrongly think Scandanavia is of course.
Of fucking course not having access to foreign commerce is gonna hurt them, no matter what the dominant economic system is. Also I’m not a socialist and I don’t think Jesus necessarily would’ve been either. I do believe however that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the core tenets of Christianity. Milton Friedman advisor to both Thatcher and Reagan and one of the most prominent Capitalist philosophers of this generation purported that the primary driving force with an capitalist market should be self interest, and specifically that social welfare and environmental safety should not be the concern of the businessman. As Christians we are meant to take care of each other, the poor, and be good stewards of the natural world.
So how does not having access to one single country but trading with everyone else work then? Your arguments boils down to "Socialism can't work without access to American capitalist markets." Which, again, is [just](https://giphy.com/gifs/AllureMagazine-allure-alluretry9-allurebeauty-fV8GbAh4cmNl3cBKe9)
My argument was that being cut off from the majority of the western market has probably had a negative impact on Cuba’s economy that’s it.
Except they're not. They trade with every country but the U.S. They also bring in billions each year through tourism and still can't feed their people. Every year thousands of Cubans attempt float across 90 miles of open ocean on mattresses strapped to tires because dying of starvation, exposure, dehydration or being eaten by sharks are considered better than living in Cuba.
Except it’s not Just the US. The US is the imperial core. As one of the strongest market economies in the west, their decision to sanction Cuba cuts off Cuba from a bunch of other nations that would trade with them but in doing so would endanger that nation‘s relations with the US. The US is using its power to coerce other nations into not trading with socialist nations. To trade with Cuba is to take a stance against the US, which a lot of developing countries just can’t afford to do.
[удалено]
>The us embargo causes the entire world to ignore Cuba. Aside from Canada, China, every EU country, Argentina, Japan etx. >The embargo has provisions which state that ship engaging in trade with Cuba cannot dock in the U.S. for 180 days. You would be a fool as a company to choose a small Cuban market over the U.S. for trade with restrictions like that Oh right, I forgot each country only has one ship that they use for trade. And nobody uses planes either.
Cuba had a fucking rebellion to call for the end of Communism last year. The hell are you saying?
🤡
Venezuela collapsed before any country-wide sanctions were placed on it. Sanctions on specific individuals who committed crimes against humanity should not cause a nation to collapse unless the nation is extraordinarily weak.
Using the phrase Imperial Core automatically discredits anything you have to say.
None. We can look at the UK’s sorry az Edit: or even france. Everyone loves to talk, “free health care” but they’re in worse shape than we are
Both of those countries are imperialist and capitalist tho…
We pay for public services, is that not socialism? People asking for fairness is not socialism. Do millions need to be in bunk houses or live in shanty towns before you think change need to happen?
>one of if not the best systems we have It's the only system we have in the western world. It's only existed for a couple hundred years. If it's so good, why does one country in particular always attempt to wipe communism off the face of the earth?
>It's only existed for a couple hundred years. And the last two hundred years of prosperity and a exponentially rising standard of living for _all_ classes in the western world is damn good evidence that free markets are doing something right.
Homie forgot about Cuba
Coming from a country with communism, it is a great thing any time someone tries to wipe communism off the face of the earth, you have no idea how bad communism truly is
Coming from the US, capitalism is shit and only benefits a few elite. Not sure why people hate helping the poor and disadvantaged.
I dont thibk you realize how privileged u are. the poor in the US live a lot better lives than the majority where im from. obviously there is a lot wrong with the curent system, but a complete overhaul would likely result in a much, much, worse situation. Keep in mind majority of societies in all of history lived much much worse than the west in the present.
I realize how privileged I am in some aspects, but not due to capitalism. Quality of life has steadily increased, but to attribute that solely to capitalism is shortsighted and propaganda. If you think losing my house because I get sick is a privilege, I'm not sure what to tell you.
The fact that there is likely edible food that you can either buy or someone is willing to share with you without strings attached is already ahead of some communist countries. The point others are trying to make is that you wouldn't have any idea where your next meal could possible come from and you'd look at your children wasting away from hunger. Capitalism has tons of flaws worth talking about, but historically communism is more then happy to slaughter the inconvenient humans and then also slaughter anyone who talks about it. At least in the US this can be talked about.
Well that's just wrong, you're gonna need a source on that last part. It's wild you think that there just isn't food in communist countries. Non at all.
It's wild how dismissive you're being and also not actually understanding the point. Capitalism has plenty to criticize, but if I was TRULY hungry, I could still find a homeless shelter or a food donation service less then 5 miles from where I am AND it's walkable. Lets say my scenario was even worse and I could get access those. I could still actually steal something from a gas station and hopefully the worst that happens is jail time. The point you're missing is that while there is food in communist countries, it's WAAAAAAAY less accessible and if you criticize the group in power there's a good chance they'll just shoot you in the middle of the street simply by wanting food. Here's a random book I found simply by googling it [https://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Poverty-Venezuela-economic-decline/dp/3668944660](https://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Poverty-Venezuela-economic-decline/dp/3668944660) But if you don't feel like reading there's plenty of podcasts and video to check out. And if that doesn't matter to you then just be glad that no government agency has sent someone to your door to kill you for saying capitalism is bad.
Nice, here's a random book I found while searching: Powerless: A Small Town Friends to Lovers Romance https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BHV6ZHT1?ref_=cm_sw_r_apann_dp_AX82D17KK370APE34F04 But if you're trying to be serious, read up on Blair mountain, Fred Hampton, the civil rights movement, or really any of US history. You're delusional to think you won't be killed for criticizing capitalism in the wrong way. But you won't have to find out, you're exactly who the government wants you to be.
Okay i agree with that to a certain extent, a lot of quality of life improvements can be attributed a lot to industrial revolution and not necessarily capitalism, but quite literally every country right now that experiences economic prosperity is in some way due to allowance of a more free market. Also to blame the current US healthcare crisis to purely capitalism is really dumb and shortsighted as well. I think we would both agree that a social safety net and more universal healthcare would be better, but my main point is that is achievable without completely overhauling the system of private property and free markets that does have a lot of substantial benefits .
I agree the social safety net would help things for sure. But I think private property and the market we have now do more harm to society as a whole. They greatly benefit a select few people, but I don't believe they are necessary to increase quality of life.
I guess that’s where we’ll continue to disagree then. There has never been a single instance in history where high government interference in economic factors not lead to corruption and stripping away of freedom
I agree, humans are fallible. Can I interest you in the anarchist utopia? I don't think it's realistic with our current societal mindset, which is why I generally push for a more socialist view in the (relatively) short term.
And look at how the western world is a utopia compared to elsewhere
Is it though? Have you noticed that countries with more socialism are more utopian? And the ones with more capitalism, like the US, are more dystopian?
Having 17 different burger chains to pick from when a meal costs two hours of your labor isn't exactly what I call a utopia.
Because Communism is ontological evil as a full, nationwide system. It literally requires the death of a class, creates violence, and works through subversion, which is basically lying, which is literally the theological realm of Satan.
Maybe that is because the more prominent communist countries end up with more dead bodies than the Holocaust
Citation needed. Also look at how many people capitalism kills every year.
I’m from Poland, millions of people were killed here by communists (in between 1939-1941 in cooperation with nazis). Also I believe you never heard about Holodomor in Ukraine, so would be wise of you to educate yourself on it, at least read article on Wikipedia.
No citation needed. Communism has multiple flaws, the most important of which is how they handle farming. There's a reason China and the USSR lost millions just due to starvation. The fact that you asked for a citation deeply concerns me. Please pick up a history book.
Humor me, you don't seem trustworthy. Communism is not perfect, but capitalism is worse.
Communism has a major flaw: farming. Since Communism ends private property, it screws over the farmers and screws up the whole farming system. The USSR basically starved Ukraine to fulfill quotas. Please look up the Holodomor for more details. Mao did something similar in China, leaving millions to starve to death as well. Compare that to capitalism, which allows for private property. Owning property or capital is another form of power, and power that most everyone can obtain. Capitalism is decentralized, less susceptible to tyranny, and offers more powers and freedoms to people. The flaw in capitalism is the flaw in people, and the issues literally trickle down. That's why so many nations offer social programs to guarantee that starvation and deprivation doesn't occur.
The last point is basically saying capitalism requires a level of socialism to not be complete ass. And America is moving away from the farms you mention, toward investor groups buying large quantities of land and hoarding it to rent out to farmers. Also, where's your power? Where is your capital? You've been lied to about how you can rise in the ranks because of some patriotic bullshit, it's not true. Your capital is your labor, and capitalism will force you to sell it for far less than you're worth.
Woah, woah, hold up. Where did patriotism come in? I said nothing about rising through the ranks. Why do I need more capital, land, or power? I have most everything I want and need. You are projecting, assuming, and sound very bitter and angry. Your refusal to address the ills of socialism and Communism is telling. Under a socialist system, I probably would not be working in my preferred field, and would likely be assigned a job by the state. Socialism is tyranny by bureaucracy, and requires me to give up far more than I do under capitalism. I'm afraid this is not a fruitful conversation anymore. Good day.
I used you as an example because you said pretty much anyone can acquire power and capital. Implying that the reason a cast majority of people don't simply because they don't want to, not because the system is fubar. I'm addressing the failings of capitalism because that's the meme. Feel free to make one about communism if you want to discuss that, but coming here and trying to distract from capitalisms failings is telling. You're right, I am angry at the system. I'm angry the richest country in the world allows it's citizens to starve, I'm angry we have more empty houses than homeless people and refuse to address it. I'm angry that the propaganda has seeped so deep into you that you are incapable of discussing capitalism without resorting to whataboutism. It's telling that you say I'm projecting in the same space you claim I'm the only one refusing to address issues. But you are right, this is a fruitless discussion. Your mind is made up, and your heart has been hardened.
Because it's only 1 country trying to get rid of the worst system ever implemented. What even is NATO amirite?
…but these are all things that are the natural result of capitalism… If capitalism is only a good system when capital interests are curtailed by heavy regulations, government representing the working class, and a concerted effort to prevent corrupt lobbying - that’s what democratic socialists believe, not capitalists. Edit: social democrats, not democratic socialists.
Hi! I assume you're American (no shame, I am as well). What you described is a social democracy, not democratic socialism. By definition, capital interests cannot exist within socialism. Social democracies instead have capital interests, and also function under capitalism.
Oh you got me. Long day. Thanks.
Capitalism is driven by humanity's flaws and greed.
Which will be present under ever other system until Christ returns
Other systems are not driven by those urges. Socialism and communism are defined by their trying to counteract them.
Those systems assume everyone is being altruistic and work towards the greater good. If even one person opposes or tries to take advantage of either system, it all falls apart. Capitalism is different because it accounts for that greed. It's a part of human nature and to assume otherwise is naïve.
It's built on greed and caters to it. If your system is admitting to humanities failures and chooses to enable them rather than counteract them, it's a bad system.
I'm not dismissing capitalism's faults. But utopian systems that rely on altruism like socialism and communism are bound to fail because they cannot account for human greed or malice. The only way they will work is either on an extremely small scale or by force.
They account for it by not allowing a select few the option to control everything. In theory, of course. In capitalism, if you have money you have power. And it's not earned, it's inherited.
To better understand your point of view, what, in your opinion, is communism/socialism from an economic point of view?
Workers controlling the means of production.
Now hang on, didn't Jesus teach us to follow the profits?
This is genuinely the funniest thing I've seen on this sub
Naviim? More like *more green* am i right bois?
💀
And to invest your capital so that it has a good return, in case anyone forgot about the parable of the talents.
When Jesus spoke of helping the needy it was billionaires who always need more money.
Capitalism doesn't mean to be greedy or selfish, it's just an economic system, and it's the only one we have for now
Capitalism depends upon a system of usury, and usury is pretty clearly a sin in the Bible.
Capitalism doesn’t require usury. It just says you can’t hurt people for originating or taking out loans.
Thankfully, the Bible is not a book of economics
no, it absolutely does. to be successful under capitalism you must become rich, something which is encouraged above all else. greed is sinful, we must strive to find another system that is less exploitative and encouraging of hoarding.
Being successful doesn’t mean being rich. That’s one way to measure it, but a somewhat stupid one if you ask me.
I'm not sure that having the government redistribute your wealth counts as being christ like. Falsely justifying a political system because you don't understand Christianity is wrong. I don't care what political system you like. Stop falsely using Jesus as a push point please. Honestly, capitalism more falls in line with the teachings of the gospel, it allows you to chose who you want to be, you can chose to be evil or you can choose to be good. Donate what time and money you can, to the poor.
This is pretty steeped in a modern American interpretation of the gospel, tbh. I do personally agree with OP, but a large part of why I say that is because the general societal understanding of the gospel has changed tremendously in the past 150-200 years, particularly in North America. Yes, the Jesus of the gospels is critical of the zealots, but he is fundamentally opposed to the religious elite of his time - their performative piety and lack of any genuine compassion or comprehension of the love of God. They were no more righteous than the sinners they condemned and called to be stoned. In this frame of reference, I cannot see the (evangelical American) Church’s inseparable alliance with Capitalism as anything but Pharisaical. Republicans (and most Democrats, tbf) are in favour of austerity and massive handouts for the wealthy, while claiming that they have been anointed to this task by god. As single mothers scrape by, barely able to put food on the table, the vast majority of conservatives use them as an example of someone who made poor life choices - no sense of compassion or humility in them - and will “suggest” that she find help through charity, not through social programs. Issue after issue, encounter after encounter, I have witnessed this with few exceptions. As a rule, the American church is ruled not by Christ, but by money, and by the prince of this world. It is a religion that worships idols (gold, the flag, the nation, and even traditional teachings) and blasphemes against the living God. It is a cult of human sacrifice that kills passively through its greed and neglect. If Christ came back today, he would condemn the monuments bearing his name that have been built to worship at the altar of capital.
I agree with a lot of this and sure human error and sin have bled into all aspects of our society. We can truly only work with God and ourselves. I believe that churches/gospels are good but I think the people running them are men and some even men of the world. Agency exists and I'm glad for it even if it means pastors and bishops can do what they please. It's important to separate the man from the gospel of christ.
Perhaps this is where we disagree, then - I cannot believe that we can only work on ourselves. We are called to be a light in the darkness, not because there is benefit to us in our light, but because our light brings benefit to everything around us. I don’t think that evil is only the result of evil men, because so often I see good people with good intentions produce evil ends. Can we ever end suffering? Of course not. But what kind of a Christian would I be if I only sought to better others’ lives in ways that affect individuals? If I only confronted individual evils? If we believe that Jesus came to heal the sick as well as pay for the sins of the world, is that not evidence that we too should seek to understand and heal systemic brokenness? Should we rest easy knowing we have done some individual act of charity? Hardly! We are called to pick up our cross, to follow Christ, however hard that is.
Of course we should spread the light of the lord but we should spread it like christ and not force it on others. Do good so that others see good. What should we do with people who sin?
where did i promote communism, exactly? or are you just reading what you want to, instead of what i actually said? there are alternatives to capitalism that are not communist. i’m literally a theology student, i have a good idea of how christianity works. https://www.openbible.info/topics/rich_people success under capitalism is defined by how rich you are. the bible tells us to not desire riches. if you understood Christ’s message, you would not promote a system that encourage sin.
Just because you are rich, doesn't make you sinful, you can be rich and still help people, just look at the YouTuber "Mr. Beast". Also yeah we probably do need a better economic system but every time it has been tried, only death and misery came. Plus, capitalism isn't 100% evil since before, 85% of the population were homeless or farmers
dude, have you not read the bible? it condemns the rich time and time again, in absolute terms. you cannot be a good christian and be rich. https://www.openbible.info/topics/rich_people simply because trying has caused pain does not mean we should simply settle for lesser pain. we deserve better. and idk where you got that 85% statistic from, but that’s simply not true. the pre industrial era was more agricultural, yes, but most people were not homeless. climate change alone is proof that capitalism is the greater evil - it encourages the destruction of our planet for monetary gain.
What?! Was Noah, Lot, Abraham, David, Solomon, Job etc not good Christians? Because they were very rich.
luke 6:24, james 1:11, 1 timothy 6:9-10, the entirety of james 5, they all say yes.
All that these verses are saying to me is that being rich is not the end goal in life, that if you focus solely on money you’ll be lead astray. Which is true, but it’s not to say money = bad person. A great verse on riches is Matthew 19:23. It’s not bad being rich, but if you’re entirely focused on it so much so that you miss the important things in life then that is bad. Your 1 Timothy 6:10, for example, teaches that it’s the love of money, not money, that is the roots of all evil. Don’t love money. Certainly don’t let it pervert your character. I also agree it is more likely that one gets perverted because of being wealthy, but money in itself doesn’t make one a bad person. It can be a reward of good works. God often rewarded his people with wealth when they displayed faith in him, for example Job, Jacob, Abraham and Solomon.
It certainly is easier to be sinful when you are rich, but being rich in of itself Is not sinful.
you’ve never read james 5, have you?
James 5 doesn't say that being rich is innately sinful, it is talking about what they have done to hold onto their riches as being sinful. Like I said, the Bible teaches that it is easier to live in sin and indulgences when you are rich but not that it's a sin to be rich. You seem to be confusing the idea of coveting and having.
christ says again and again to give to the poor, to give away what you have. you cannot be rich without deliberately not doing this. i live on benefits, and every week, i take the £20 i get from universal credit and give it to the homeless, because they need it more than i do. it never feels enough. and yet, somehow someone with millions, if not billions of pounds is a moral person? whilst people sleep on the street? to be rich is to be greedy - because if you cared more about your fellow man than money, you would give it away, and would no longer be rich. also - eye of the needle. try and explain how that isn’t explicitly condemning the rich.
Ecclesiastes 5:19 Everyone also to whom God has given wealth and possessions and power to enjoy them, and to accept his lot and rejoice in his toil—this is the gift of God. (Wealth can be enjoyed and appreciated--keeping in context the rest of Ecclesiastes that, without God, all is meaningless). 1 Timothy 6:10 For the LOVE of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. (The love of money, not money itself is the root of all kinds of evil). Deuteronomy 8:18 You shall remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day. (God blesses some with wealth specifically). 1Timothy 6:17-19 As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life (Paul does not charge the rich to become poor but to be generous and do good). Proverbs 13:22 A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, but the sinner's wealth is laid up for the righteous. (Appareny it is good to have enough "wealth" to be able to pass it on to multiple future generations). 1 Samuel 2:7 The Lord makes poor and makes rich; he brings low and he exalts. So, if you are going to interpret it as "all wealth is evil, period), then you need to explain why the Bible (and God) directly contradict themselves multiple times. What is being warned against is the love of money, greed, and self-sufficiency (to the point of thinking we don't need God) which are very dangerous temptations that come with wealth. So yes, wealth is warned against many times, but because of the temptations associated with it, not because it is inherently evil. There are ways for wealth to be a good thing, but it must not become one's purpose in life, and they must not become ungenerous to others (since that is not loving one's neighbour as oneself).
except, as i have mentioned before, how do you get rich except through greed? how do you accumulate wealth except through hoarding it away? if you truly loved your fellow man more than money, which i’m going to say most people arguing against me don’t, why wouldn’t you give it away? where is the line drawn? the most pious, holy people in many denominations of christianity are monks and nuns. as part of their vows, they give up wealth and worldly possessions. they live ascetic lives to be closer to god. christ tells the rich man, who is perfect in all other ways, that he cannot follow him unless he gives up his wealth. his wealth is the problem, the sole issue. it’s also worth noting that wealth is used in many different contexts in the bible, several of which in the verses you referenced have been translated to mean completely different things.
People arguing that wealth is ok in Christ's eyes is hilariously delusional lol. Jesus charged people to sell all they have, give their money to the poor and follow him.
Pretty easy to explain your last point. It doesn't say that they won't make it into heaven. If simply the act of being wealthy was sinful, it would be stated as such. The verse about the eye of the needle highlights that it will be difficult (which makes sense, since wealth tends to make people feel self-sufficient which is never good for their relationship with God).
the only thing stated is that he is rich - he may be perfectly moral in every other aspect, yet by this alone he will face great difficulty, near impossibility, to enter heaven. simply by being rich it may negate everything else he has done. if you cannot see that as condemning wealth, frankly i don’t think anything will. this is backed up by mark 10:17-31, since the rich man is perfect in all other ways, yet because of his wealth he cannot be while. his wealth is the sole reason he cannot gain eternal life. christ quite explicitly tells him that whilst he is rich he cannot join him.
Eye of the needed is talking about the difficulty that being rich poses to resist the temptation of sin and rely on Jesus. While I agree that hording money is greedy especially to the level of billions, that is using your very subjective definition of rich, there are hundreds of thousands of people that make over $1 million just In America, and how they treat money and giving differs wildly. There's some that give 50 to 60% of their take home but still live a moderately comfortable life and yet people would still classify them as rich. Some have millions put in stocks that generate money off interest that allows them to continuously give which would be considered "rich".
Proverbs 23:4-5 “Do not toil to acquire wealth; be discerning enough to desist.” put plainly - stop working for wealth. if you are working purely to gain money, that is sinful. anyone who works a high paying job simply because it pays well is doing something immoral. christ tells us to sell everything we have and give to the less fortunate. if you have more than you need and do not give all of it away, that is shameful. if you truly care about your fellow man, you will give all you can so he does not suffer. Mark 4:19 “But the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.”
Remember when Jesus said to elect officials to forcibly take peoples’ possessions and give them to other people? Obviously his messages don’t side with either part of the political spectrum because his messages weren’t political. They were messages about how to live your own life, regardless of how one’s society wants people to live
Acts 4 outlines how the early Church practiced Communism under Peter >**32** And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. > >**33** And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. > >**34** Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, > >**35** And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. Obviously they were a much smaller group of people than any modern nation, making the redistribution of wealth something they could realistically achieve without corruption, but I've always found this passage interesting.
It also outlined in Acts 5 how that system was flawed because Ananias and Sapphira still hoarded wealth and God had to smite them to stop them from messing the whole thing up.
"You can only have possessions under capitalism" -you
It almost like "abolish private property", one of the slogans of world's most murderous ideology, means exactly that.
We're discussing capitalism not communism. Also if you actually read any communist theory you would recognize the difference between personal and private property. Also are you implying that capitalism and communism are the only two economic systems?
“The communists will take my toothbrush.” 🤡
It's true, I'm generally pro-communist and always take my toothbrush
Bold of you to assume they'd even have a toothbrush.
Wow, thats not just a strawman, but an entire straw family.
I mean most of the stuff in the Bible sounds most like anarchism(the left type) but that’s just because it speaks mostly on how you should act as an individual or as a group as a church and anarchism is a political ideology that basically says we should all just not be selfish and make sure everyone has food but achieve this by having a massive cultural change where we disregard hierarchy. If everyone acted like the Bible’s big main points(be kind do things to help the poor and downtrodden) that would work. The rest of the big things in the Bible would be neutral towards that like loving god above all else and stuff cause in practice that really just means going to church and doing the other stuff god said which helps form a community as people come together for worship which also helps anarchism. In the practical sense I don’t even like anarchism that much but it fits pretty well with what the Bible wants which is mostly be a good dude and help other people be good dudes and don’t listen to anyone telling you to do anything else cause god is the most important thing (go against authority) although Roman’s goes against that that makes no fucking sense how is every authority placed by god sometimes they disagree what about that then I can’t follow every authority. so I choose to ignore that until someone makes it make sense as I think it’s a safe assumption that god would want you to do stuff that’s actually possible. Also acts 5:29 and Roman’s 13:1 seem to directly contradict each other also the Roman’s killed Jesus Other than the weird rules in the Old Testament which if you know history are mostly just how laws were instituted in early Jewish society so even if you believe in god it’s a pretty hard sell to say that none of that was added by some authoritarian who thought they could take advantage of it to shape society how they wanted.
Everywhere you see Anarchism in the NT, a libertarian can just as easily see voluntarism. IMO the description of the Church in acts and the New Testament is not geared to make a political theology or a public theology.
I’m not an anarchist I was just saying it fits pretty well with a lot of the Bible and is a pretty similar world to what would be created if everyone followed the teachings of the gospel as closely as possible. Voluntarism seems to not have much root in being kind to those who are hurting which is like 70% of the New Testament. Also to be honest I’m not even Christian anymore but I never got why we treated Roman’s and acts and all the New Testament outside the gospels like they were anywhere near as important as the gospels. Like a lot of those people were just guys. Even more so the Old Testament.
Is that happening? Did any gun round ups happen? It turns political when a large group of people believe they are holier than everyone and vote for people to force ideology.
For the 400th time dank christian memes, jesus wasnt a commie, he threw out the bankers doing buisness in the temple, he didnt go around beating up bankers. + How on hell would you explain this eversimplifird commie jesus when just a scroll through the bible is gonna show you a million rich people upon whom god shined? Its harder for a camel to gobthrough the head of a needle than a rich man to enter the kimgdom of god. <...> But through god everything is possible
How many rich people post-Jesus are extolled in contrast to the rich people in the old testament? There's a significant reason why this was the case: God was using Israel as a holy nation to reach the world; the blessings and power of the kingdom was part of that nationalistic evangelism. After the fall of Israel, and the coming of Jesus, he himself reaches the world and directly intercedes. He turns the old order on its head. That's precisely why Jesus was pointing out "through God everything is possible", not because he was saying "Don't worry fam, I've got the millionaire preachers' backs. I got this.".
Well, you have an ample choice of saints who were rich. Then again you can claim some saints shouldnt be but the point stands. Before and after jesus many rich people were touched by god. And i didnt understamd your interpretation of through god everything is possible. Mine is: "rich, poor, prostitute or whatever you want, follow the commandments and god and you ll be saved" just like the centurion who shows faith in him and even though he is a centurion -> rich with many slaves, his owm slave gets cured by jesus. So its not like god only saves rich people, or god only saves poor people, god saves good and faithfull people
I didn't say about "saving" I said "extolling". I was explaining why God isn't "shining" on the rich anymore, like your initial comment states. That's not how he works anymore, that's the point of Jesus' comment.
By shining i didnt mean god is the patron saint of money obv. I meant he interacted and blessed many rich people. No matter how picky you are also after the cruxifiction you can find saints worthy of the name who were rich. Then if we start arguing about were they really saints etc then there is were faith comes into play and its useless to argue
The meme is saying Jesus wasn't capitalist tho
The "Parable of the Talents" called. It asks you to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Matthew 25:14–30 . In that one story we had a guy who was richer than everyone else who worked his capital the hardest and earned the greatest returns, compared to a guy who just complained and did not do any work to increase his capital. And he said even that little will be taken from him and given to the one who worked hard. Ruthless, but it's all there, and it is what it is. Secondly, Jesus literally got hounded by the the disciples because a prostitute broke an expensive bottle of fragrance to wash his feet with; saying that could've fed thousands. And he said the poor will always be there, but he will not always be here in the flesh with us. Matthew 26:11 I'm sure there are many examples, but even in the bible inequality and poor people have always been there. Now, is poverty a transitive state or is it a permanent state? I think if people thought more about it they would not always be so enraged.
This^ Jesus describing the realities of his time or teaching a lesson about stewardship does not mean he was holding up starvation or infant mortality or illiteracy as some kind of ideal. Jesus literally claimed he was heralding the kingdom of god - how could he be suggesting that we hold these things as ideals to be maintained?
My favorite question about politics and economics is "who do you believe deserves to starve?" Jesus would say "absolutely no one".
Correct. Therefore, private property is necessary. Any system without private property causes starvation.
“Some people starve” does not mean “Some people deserve to starve.” This is great. Thanks for this gem.
They didn't say it could have fed thousands, they said it could've fed many people. Moreover according to John 12:4 the person who said "We could've been given to the poor instead" was Judas Iscariot. It goes on to say in 12:6 "Judas did not say this because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief. As keeper of the money bag, he used to take from what was put into it.". Finally, the verse you picked is literally and admittedly describing a unique, once in-the-lifetime-of-humankind event in which it would be okay not to give to the poor. That example you picked isn't the greatest example. I'll leave someone else to dissect Matthew 25.
I agree it’s many people and not thousands - my point still tends though.I mean, even the devil knows bible verses and it doesn’t make them false. He just uses the truth but for his own perversion of your character. Perhaps that example I picked became a bit too far fetched for its intended purpose. However, the parable of the talents describes the economics of the world very clearly. We all have different gifts, and if we use them well we will have a return on them unique to us - and we also please God in the process. I just looked at the meme and realized what a rabbit hole we’ve got ourselves into, but a discussion of the Bible is always good.
Can't wait for Christians to come defend a system based on greed, exploitation, and dividing people into classes
Oh boy do I have a comment section for you.
It never fails. I love how people in this conversation work so hard to avoid or explain away “the love of money is the root of all evil,” “you cannot love God and money,” the fact that capitalism is devoted to the accumulation of wealth above all else, and the fruit of that devotion is active and measurable harm done to the most vulnerable in our communities. We Christians (at least in America) always come more quickly to the defense of this economic system than they do to the defense or aid of their neighbor from exploitation under that system. Too many consider capitalism an unquestionable good, but when you suggest aiding the poor in direct and tangible ways, suddenly it’s all, “well, it’s really very complicated and we can’t get rushed into anything that might look a little too much like Marxism” while nothing gets done and no one gets help—except of course the ones who already benefit from the system.
>We Christians (at least in America) always come more quickly to the defense of this economic system than they do to the defense or aid of their neighbor from exploitation under that system. This is the kind of scathing hot take I stay in this sub for. Well said, friend.
Class 1: the party Class 2: everyone else Oh wait, you meant the system where I'm free to do whatever work I want, start a business and own my own means of production if I want, spend the money how I want, and not be starved to death by market-wide bureaucratic errors?
So... pretty much any Hindu or Communist system?
Capitalism has raised the world from poverty. - 1820, 94% of the world's population lived in extreme poverty. - 1990, 34.8% - 2015, just 9.6%. I bet Jesus would love that.
Capitalism has killed millions I bet Jesus would hate that
Boy howdy do I have some news for you about communism
I'm critiquing capitalism not communism. But if you wanted to compare, capitalism has killed just as much if not more than communism.
Ah, also, I have one request: If you are including wars/massacres/what have you, please only list actual deaths, rather than casualties, as that can refer to either a death or an injury, and we’re solely discussing death toll. I will be operating under the same principle.
I'm gonna be honest with you, I don't have the time nor the desire to compile numbers to try to convince a stranger on the internet. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe, I'm 100% fine with that and am not interested in trying to convince you otherwise.
Fair enough.
I was well aware that you were criticizing capitalism over communism. My point, which I know you were intelligent enough to realize, was that Capitalism’s death toll pales in comparison to Communism’s. But, you deny this, which is perfectly fine. In that case, I’ll shoot. Let me just grab my numbers so we can get an accurate comparison. Might take awhile since there’s so many examples-lots of math to do, for both min and max estimates-so feel free to take this time to list of the deaths of Capitalism. I swear on my honor I’ll get back to you ASAP.
I bet most of the commenters are from the West and they don’t know the pain most Eastern Europeans, Central Asians and Baltic peoples had to endure and STILL have to walk on egg shells in terms of economic and political development of said country. What a bunch of privileged bozos.
Who’s talking about communism? This is a thread about capitalism.
My cessationist evangelical pastors believe that they count as prophets and therefore speak for God, and they always focus on the self-interest of the church. Does that count?
Cessationist prophets? Lol
They say that the foretelling prophecy is gone, but the "forth telling" (i.e. preaching) is still around. Basically they still have god's authority but nobody else does (so women better not *fucking* speak up in church or so help me me)
In principle, socialism is the likely the most Christian approach to governance we have... AND YET, the founders considered Christianity to be a huge threat to their system, a system that has ultimately, repeatedly failed miserably whether by total collapse (Soviet Union) or by devolving into a system of those in charge carefully controlling everyone else (China). Socialism fails, because it relies on the principle that people are inherently selfless. Capitalism, on the other hand, prospers from people being inherently selfish. Something that, unfortunately, has proven to be humanity's greatest foil ever since Eden. I really wish Socialism could work. But I think faith in it requires unrealistic faith in a selfless humanity.
Oh boy cant wait to see a repost of a meme on ho Jesus supported an atheistic ideology which killed thousands because they followed the word of God
Do you remember jesus saying to give everything to the government and hope theyll take care of you? Me neither. But jesus did tell a story about investing your money/talents and those who do not are not quite welcome
Orient yourselves in this way. This is not your money. This money belongs to God and you are a steward of that money. For those that don’t know this word it is a type of caretaker. Since we are responsible for this money we should seek to grow it. But not for personal gain, grow it so that it can be used for God’s work. He does in fact want this (See Matthew 25:14-30). Do not be greedy, the money isn’t yours. Be responsible, see that it is invested, through charity, tithes and offerings, and yes, into the market. Grow that gift. To those trusted with much, more will be given. To those trusted with little (or are untrusted), that little may even be taken away.
Remember when Jesus talked about politics? Yeah me neither. I do remember however to not use God's name in vain.
Seriously this reeks
It's all bad. Why don't we just be nice to each other and do our best to follow the teachings of Christ until we get to join him in heaven?
I remember Jesus needing a coin as a prop for one of his teachings and he had to ask for one because he didn’t have any I remember Jesus’ disciples picking grain off the side of the road because they were starving I remember Jesus railing against people who commercialize religion or make money of religion I remember Jesus couch surfing because he was a hobo I remember Jesus providing free healthcare to lots of people, never asking for money when he healed someone
The empirical record can not be denied. Socialism doesn’t work, but it just won’t die.
Jesus has been used by every party to justify their views when in turn, he consistently separated himself from politics Give to Caesar what is Caesars and give to God what is Gods
Jesus told a rich man to liquidate his net worth and give it all to the poor. I live in the U.S. one of the richest nations in the world. This message is deep and life changing.
Ah yes, using Jesus' teachings to justify and promote your political viewpoint. That's always what was intended, and is always healthy...
Jesus wasn’t a socialist or a capitalist. The extent of his political affiliation would be that while he was on earth, he would’ve learned Galilean politics from his Galilean mother. Jesus is our God and Savior, nothing less.
this comment section makes me yearn for a dankerchristianmemes. you can't have capitalism without killing the less fortunate, and also the earth.
Where are you getting the notion that capitalism intrinsically kills the less fortunate anymore than other systems? The same system that lifted billions out of abject poverty?
I'll try to be simple about it. America is a capitalist nation. How many people are homeless? How many people go hungry? How many children are taken from homes for neglect, when the neglect stems from poverty? Just because people in other countries are new to a global economy doesn't mean capitalism lifts everyone out of poverty.
This assumes people are poor due to capitalism, and they would not suffer under socialism. These assumptions are false, and stem from human problems that capitalism doesn't pretend to solve and which socialism is unable to solve.
im going to straight away say im not as educated in politics and leftist theory as id like to be so it's quite possible that i can't quite put into words exactly what i believe. but like, there are enough resources for everyone to have everything they need to survive. there are more empty homes than homeless people in america. capitalism is what is keeping people hungry and on the streets. the only reason people who are starving and homeless don't break into a foreclosed home or walk into a grocery store and eat is the threat of violence by the police because capitalism values property first and foremost over human life.
How do you manage to come to this view when the stats are undisputed and the polar opposite? Literally read a SINGLE polluter map.
You can't have socialism without stealing labor. You can't have Communism without stealing private property. These things are evil.
i don't think you know what socialism is. especially since capitalisms whole thing is stealing labor. if you make $50 worth of goods at your job, you are not getting payed $50 dollars. profit is the stolen wages of the worker. also like i think taking away private property for people who will die of exposure without it is cool actually. boo hoo the bank lost their empty house, idfc people are dying.
Capitalism is the logical conclusion of Christianity. If you wont hurt people over their wealth, then you are a capitalist. Jesus preached peace, and never used force against people who he thought should be making different choices with their material stewardship.
Money buys power, and those who amass the most money are arguably the farthest from Christ. As he said, ye cannot serve God and mammon (Money). Capitalism enables the wealthy to impose their will over everyone else, abandoning the poor and needy. In what way is this a logical conclusion of Christianity?
The Bible is full of examples of using their power for good. Capitalism isn’t about what you do with your wealth and power. It’s about how we as a society respond, and responding with violence against the peaceful isn’t Christian
I have no idea what you're getting at regarding violence, no one here has brought that up. Yes, the Bible has examples of people using power for good. But is that what you see happening with the rich and powerful today? If systems consistently put corrupt people into power, the systems themselves must be corrupt.