Is capitalism compatble with Christianity?

[Dupin]

It all depends on how one defines capitalism I guess.

First century Rome was filled with big business along the lines of what we might call proprietary business. The modern corporation wouldn't com along for another eighteen or nineteen centuries more or less.

However, Jewish law was premised on the concept of private property, the same premise as capitalism. Jesus threw the money changers out of the Temple because they were conducting their business where they had no right to be, on the sacred grounds of that temple. So the incident cannot be held up as a condemnation of capitalism on his part.

He did condemn greed. But that is not a condemnation of business or capitalism. He, himself grew up as a carpenter, essentially a business man who conducted his business until he turned thirty and started his ministry. That condemnation is one capitalists should use as a guide.

[Susanna]

It all depends on how one defines capitalism I guess.

First century Rome was filled with big business along the lines of what we might call proprietary business. The modern corporation wouldn't com along for another eighteen or nineteen centuries more or less.

However, Jewish law was premised on the concept of private property, the same premise as capitalism. Jesus threw the money changers out of the Temple because they were conducting their business where they had no right to be, on the sacred grounds of that temple. So the incident cannot be held up as a condemnation of capitalism on his part.

He did condemn greed. But that is not a condemnation of business or capitalism. He, himself grew up as a carpenter, essentially a business man who conducted his business until he turned thirty and started his ministry. That condemnation is one capitalists should use as a guide.

Well said, Dupin!

[Marxist Nutter]

He did condemn greed. But that is not a condemnation of business or capitalism. He, himself grew up as a carpenter, essentially a business man who conducted his business until he turned thirty and started his ministry. That condemnation is one capitalists should use as a guide.

Let us not forget that maximising your own self interest in the bedrock of capitalism (it is its most core assumption - see Adam Smith or even rational choice theory for that matter) and this seems wholly at odds with Christ's teachings (to me at least)

[Bullseyed]

Excellent way to dodge the question.

Par for the course. She'll put him on ignore shortly so she doesn't have to actually formulate an argument to support anything.

One thinks of Jesus destroying the money lender's stall in the temple and lines like 'the meek shall inherit the Earth' and 'it is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for the rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven' and I wonder if a philosophy based on greed and money lust as well as rational selfishness (i.e capitalism) is not the very antithesis of Christ's teachings???

Your thoughts?

Brief overview first:

This all goes back to the view of Christians immediately after the time of Christ up until relatively recent times. There are better Biblical passages you could have cited to support your argument. Jesus directly commands His followers not to charge interest when they lend money. As we know, in terms of modern economics in the United States, business runs on interest versus inflation combined with credit/debt. So then, combining a literal translation of the Bible with modern business/economics is... troublesome to say the least.

Luckily, not all Christians are Biblical literalists. The specific issue of whether or not Christians are allowed to charge interest was addressed by Church Council and it was decided that yes, Christians can charge interest.

To address your post directly:

Money Changers in the Temple:
This has more to do with society and reverence than anything else. The Jewish people still preserved their own currency in religious matters. It was considered idolatry to use coins with faces on them. Since the Jews were under control of the Roman empire and had to use coins with the face of Caesar on them, they would exchange such currency for 'acceptable' currency in the entryway of the temple (often at outrageous rates) so that they could use them as 'donations' or 'sacrifices' at the temple.

So here there is a combination of what was considered idolatry with 'ripping people off' on the exchange rate and also making money (like interest) while doing no 'actual work'. It was dishonorable to make money on things that didn't involve 'physical labor'. On top of that, the business was being conducted within the entryway of the temple, which was disrespectful to God. The whole story probably would not have happened in that manner if they had been a few blocks away on the street instead of in the temple.


Meek will inherit the Earth:
I'm not really sure what this will have to do with the topic at hand.

Meek:

• humble in spirit or manner; suggesting retiring mildness or even cowed submissiveness; "meek and self-effacing"
• very docile; "tame obedience"; "meek as a mouse"- Langston Hughes
• evidencing little spirit or courage; overly submissive or compliant; "compliant and anxious to suit his opinions of those of others"

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I suppose you could somehow link the savvy businessman to it and say a businessman is courageous and thus not meek? It seems that when Jesus used the word meek He was likely referring to spiritually meek. That is to say, not-priestly. The purpose of this statement would be to let the people know that they were on the same level as the high priests and pharisees, who at the time were considered 'holier' and more likely to receive salvation. This was an affirmation that we are all equals in the eyes of God.


Camel, eye of the needle, rich man:
There are a lot of common misconceptions, or perhaps controversies, surrounding this story.

The Jesuits teach that the eye of the needle does not refer to a needle as a sewing instrument. Rather, the term 'eye of the needle' refers to the small door used by towns after dark. Towns and cities at the time had walls around them, with big gates in the front. Opening this gate at night was dangerous, because it could allow for an attack. So instead they had a smaller door near the gate which is called 'the eye of the needle'. This door was only about 6 to 6 1/2 feet tall, which meant a fully loaded camel for traveling would have to get down on its knees and crawl in order to pass through the door and enter the city. If the camel is stripped of it's load, it can pass, or else it must kneel to pass. Metaphorically, this means to either give up worldly possession or to submit subservience to God to enter the kingdom of heaven, and this becomes progressively harder with more possessions. The original one of these gates was at Jerusalem and was called 'The Needle's Eye' and thus all Jews at the time should have been familiar with it, but today, people are not.

Another translation, which I hadn't heard of until I did some research on it, is that the word camel is mistranslated and the actual word was supposed to be rope. Now, a rope is still going to have a problem with a sewing needle, so what does this mean? According to the resource I found on the matter, the common conception under this school of thought is that Jesus intentionally described an action that is impossible for man. He did this because 'all things are possible through God,' meaning that man ALONE can never achieve salvation without divine help.

Capitalism in general:
Capitalism has nothing to do with greed or money lust. If you have any non-fallacious arguments, feel free to update that one.


In Conclusion:

Yes, there are Bible passages that would come in direct conflict with Capitalistic systems, but you didn't cite them. The ones that do exist have been taken care of by Church teaching in the times since they were written.

[Rightwing Nutjob]

Not Really otherwise you could equally say communism existed the first time two people co-operated. The statements seem equally wide of the mark, in my opinion however.

Cooperation is necessary to capitalism. Capitalist exchanges are voluntary. Cooperation is not the hallmark of communism although I don't know what you mean by communism since you have moved past Marx. If you're talking about Marx's communism, it's pretty well not going to exist as capitalism (or more precisely free market trade reasserts istelf.

So is today's capitalism compatible with Christianity?

That's just about impossible to answer since our modern economies are no more capitalism than socialists seem to want to accept that they're socialism. Is laissez faire capitalism compatible? Absolutely.

[Marxist Nutter]

[quote=Bullseyed;279225]

Luckily, not all Christians are Biblical literalists.

Thankfully!!! It is a rather absurd ontology, I think

Money Changers in the Temple:
This has more to do with society and reverence than anything else. The Jewish people still preserved their own currency in religious matters. It was considered idolatry to use coins with faces on them. Since the Jews were under control of the Roman empire and had to use coins with the face of Caesar on them, they would exchange such currency for 'acceptable' currency in the entryway of the temple (often at outrageous rates) so that they could use them as 'donations' or 'sacrifices' at the temple.

So here there is a combination of what was considered idolatry with 'ripping people off' on the exchange rate and also making money (like interest) while doing no 'actual work'. It was dishonorable to make money on things that didn't involve 'physical labor'. On top of that, the business was being conducted within the entryway of the temple, which was disrespectful to God. The whole story probably would not have happened in that manner if they had been a few blocks away on the street instead of in the temple.

Yes agreed, however did Jesus not also teach that whole world was God's temple and so there is more ambiguity here than you seem to allow for.

Meek will inherit the Earth:
I'm not really sure what this will have to do with the topic at hand.

Meek:

• humble in spirit or manner; suggesting retiring mildness or even cowed submissiveness; "meek and self-effacing"
• very docile; "tame obedience"; "meek as a mouse"- Langston Hughes
• evidencing little spirit or courage; overly submissive or compliant; "compliant and anxious to suit his opinions of those of others"

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Yes they hardley seem like the same animal as modern capitalists do they? see my point now?

Camel, eye of the needle, rich man:
There are a lot of common misconceptions, or perhaps controversies, surrounding this story.

The Jesuits teach that the eye of the needle does not refer to a needle as a sewing instrument. Rather, the term 'eye of the needle' refers to the small door used by towns after dark. Towns and cities at the time had walls around them, with big gates in the front.

Yes this is very well known but does not change the meaning of the proverb a jot!

Metaphorically, this means to either give up worldly possession or to submit subservience to God to enter the kingdom of heaven, and this becomes progressively harder with more possessions. The original one of these gates was at Jerusalem and was called 'The Needle's Eye' and thus all Jews at the time should have been familiar with it, but today, people are not.

Does this not underscore my point or am I missing something?

Another translation, which I hadn't heard of until I did some research on it, is that the word camel is mistranslated and the actual word was supposed to be rope. Now, a rope is still going to have a problem with a sewing needle, so what does this mean? According to the resource I found on the matter, the common conception under this school of thought is that Jesus intentionally described an action that is impossible for man. He did this because 'all things are possible through God,' meaning that man ALONE can never achieve salvation without divine help.

Interesting I did not know this but once again this should further reinforce not undermine my point??

Capitalism in general:
Capitalism has nothing to do with greed or money lust. If you have any non-fallacious arguments, feel free to update that one.

Really is not maximising self interest the very basis of capitalism or maybe every scholar I have ever read was wrong on the matter!!

[Rightwing Nutjob]

Really is not maximising self interest the very basis of capitalism or maybe every scholar I have ever read was wrong on the matter!!

Self-interest is fine and perfectly compatible with the Scriptures. Stepping on other folks to get what you want is not. Capitalism requires voluntary exchanges of value. Anything else is might makes right, theft or something else entirely. The Scriptures are firmly anti-theft, which implies property rights.

[Marxist Nutter]

Self-interest is fine and perfectly compatible with the Scriptures. Stepping on other folks to get what you want is not. Capitalism requires voluntary exchanges of value. Anything else is might makes right, theft or something else entirely. The Scriptures are firmly anti-theft, which implies property rights.

Notice the idea of self interest MAXIMISATION it makes a big difference to the argument. As in a world of limited resources maximising one's self interest is always to the detriment of others whether you choose to see it or not. This is my doctrine at least and it seems far more compatable with Christ's than not

[Rightwing Nutjob]

Notice the idea of self interest MAXIMISATION it makes a big difference to the argument. As in a world of limited resources maximising one's self interest is always to the detriment of others whether you choose to see it or not. This is my doctrine at least and it seems far more compatable with Christ's than not

No, it's not.

Maximization of self-interest is just fine.

[Fantasy Chaser]

Let us not forget that maximising your own self interest in the bedrock of capitalism (it is its most core assumption - see Adam Smith or even rational choice theory for that matter) and this seems wholly at odds with Christ's teachings (to me at least)

And anytime anyone tried to build on the "bedrock" of Marxism, it turned out to be a mirage on quicksand.