I've often wondered about this. Could someone explain it to me? I'm politically conservative myself and I'm seeking to be a Christian, but I want to know why the two are so often connected.
I've often wondered about this. Could someone explain it to me? I'm politically conservative myself and I'm seeking to be a Christian, but I want to know why the two are so often connected.
I've often wondered about this. Could someone explain it to me? I'm politically conservative myself and I'm seeking to be a Christian, but I want to know why the two are so often connected.
Protestants are generally Conservative, but Catholics can swing either way.
RoseOfJesus said:I've often wondered about this. Could someone explain it to me? I'm politically conservative myself and I'm seeking to be a Christian, but I want to know why the two are so often connected.
I see capitalism as simply a way to put money and resources in the hands of good people
Better than anything else, actually. It is the most effective earthly means of raising everyday people's standard of living in history. Compare East and West Germany before unification. Compare North and South Korea. Compare Hong Kong, before the Chinese government regained control, to the rest of China even though it had no resources. Look at Taiwan's economic miracle....and how has the worked out through history?
We are free to use it as either. A Christian obviously should use it as a tool rather than an idol. But even the people who are very greedy don't just hoard money. They spend it to buy more stuff, whether they need it, or whether they simply want it. Having 3 or 4 homes may sound bad to some people. However it's very good for those that work in construction, home furnishings, or interior design since some of that wealth is transferred to those people, enabling them to make their livings. Capitalism is a system which does not rely on an idealistic notion that people will be good. Rather, it banks on human selfishness, and converts it into a positive force which puts more money in the hands of more people across the social spectrum than anything else humanity has tried. When that happens, good people including Christians get more resources with which they can choose to do good.However, its not how the world works. People are greedy and they hoard their wealth. People are materialistic and buy needless material goods rather than re-distributing it to those who are starving. People use money as an idol rather than a tool.
So in other words, you have a problem with parents giving their private property which they have earned, to whoever they wish?Also, the massive flaw in the capitalistic, meritocratic system is inheritance. Because bad kids can come from good parents and so even if those good parents worked hard and managed to get lots of money and resources and do plenty of good with it, when they die, they're bratty kids might end up with it. Unless you're suggesting that parents should give any money, possessions or property they have to charity when they die.
...and how has the worked out through history?
I think its a laudable ideal and, if it could be made true, then government could keep their bureaucracy, inefficiency and red-tape out of it.
However, its not how the world works. People are greedy and they hoard their wealth. People are materialistic and buy needless material goods rather than re-distributing it to those who are starving. People use money as an idol rather than a tool.
Also, the massive flaw in the capitalistic, meritocratic system is inheritance. Because bad kids can come from good parents and so even if those good parents worked hard and managed to get lots of money and resources and do plenty of good with it, when they die, they're bratty kids might end up with it. Unless you're suggesting that parents should give any money, possessions or property they have to charity when they die.
To the OP: I think there's some aspects of both left and right that are quite un-Christian. The right's "survival of the fittest" philosophy doesn't go along well with Jesus' "turn the other cheek" morality.
I'm kind of a social justice-type and I when I see people starving, going homeless, living on the streets due to mental disability, etc while a rich person buys another BMW and an unnecessarily large suburban house along with a membership to a prestigious golf club, I tend to view that as WAY worse than concerning myself with what two men do on their spare time.
You don't see Jesus breaking into people's houses to make sure two men aren't sleeping together. Rather, you see him clothing to naked, healing the sick, and constantly commanding people to give up their material wealth.
I also find the Biblical argument for pro-life to be sparse at best.
I've often wondered about this. Could someone explain it to me? I'm politically conservative myself and I'm seeking to be a Christian, but I want to know why the two are so often connected.
Better than anything else, actually. It is the most effective earthly means of raising everyday people's standard of living in history. Compare East and West Germany before unification. Compare North and South Korea. Compare Hong Kong, before the Chinese government regained control, to the rest of China even though it had no resources. Look at Taiwan's economic miracle.
We are free to use it as either. A Christian obviously should use it as a tool rather than an idol. But even the people who are very greedy don't just hoard money. They spend it to buy more stuff, whether they need it, or whether they simply want it. Having 3 or 4 homes may sound bad to some people. However it's very good for those that work in construction, home furnishings, or interior design since some of that wealth is transferred to those people, enabling them to make their livings. Capitalism is a system which does not rely on an idealistic notion that people will be good. Rather, it banks on human selfishness, and converts it into a positive force which puts more money in the hands of more people across the social spectrum than anything else humanity has tried. When that happens, good people including Christians get more resources with which they can choose to do good.
So in other words, you have a problem with parents giving their private property which they have earned, to whoever they wish?
Very nicely, actually. If you want to try the alternative, you can move to China where pretty much everyone is equally poor.
The problem is with people, not with capitalism. This will be true in any society where people exist.
But this is how capitalism works. People work to get wealthy. They do so by hiring people. Creating jobs distributes the wealth, without government aid, to those who earn it. Experienced employees can then shop around for employers who are willing to hire them, and they can take the job with the most benefits and the highest pay.
This is how you distribute the wealth. Not by handing it over to people who do little to nothing to earn it. Governmental "aid" actually serves to trap people into poverty, because trying harder would mean less federal aid. It had even caused some husbands to move out because the family would get more money if there were no work-able male in the home.
Inheritance accounts for a very miniscule number of the wealthy. Most who have that status have worked their way up, like Bill Gates. The Kardashians are of the minority, and they will eventually deplete their wealth unless they do something to get more.
The Bible promotes personal responsibility, not survival of the fittest. Charity provides for people's needs, not the government.
Conservatives are not concerned with what two mean do in private. They're concerned with the dignity of marriage, not to be redefined to include same-sex union.
The people who are commanded to give are the believers. They give to the church, who uses it to fill the needs of the whole, as well as the needs of unbelievers. It has nothing to do with government.
The non-Biblical argument that life does not begin until it comes out of the womb is invisible. There is no reason at all to believe so. It doesn't take long at all for the child to develop a thinking brain, and it is capable of struggling for its life long before the imaginary line drawn by the pro-choice camp for when life officially begins to them.
The Bible says that if a woman is struck while she is pregnant and the child comes out dead, that is equal to murder. The Bible's stance on the issue is very clear.
Inequality of assets is not a problem. It simply isn't. What matters is whether people have the ability to obtain what they need as quickly as possible. Capitalism has done a better job of it than anything else that has been tried. It isn't perfect, no earthly solution will be. It's simply the best that we've discovered so far.How is a system that promotes and sustains the degree of inequality in the above link said to be a good system? I think that there could be a better system; I don't think everyone should be equal, I just think there should be mechanisms in place that keep inequality lower than it is now.
Actually, no. It doesn't take upward mobility into account. Also, if the government stopped artificially inflating the currency, the lower and middle class would be much better off. The answer IMO, is a freer market, not a more restricted one.The above link indicates that trickle down economics is a failure.
You can't really compare a sin industry like inappropriate contentography to any economic system as a whole. The inappropriate content industry WILL chew up and then spit out both the consumers and the producers. I don't know if you're familiar with The Pink Cross, but the testimonies of those adult industry veterans literally turned my stomach. There is simply no comparing that to a network of business transactions.However, while I did say capitalism is bad at re-distributing wealth, I never said that it isn't a very functional system. It works very well because it hinges on a human vice: greed. But just because a system works doesn't mean it is good. The inappropriate contentography industry hinges on human lust and it works wonderfully, does that make it good?
For one, capitalism doesn't interfere with it. It just lets the Christian doctor and the Christian grocer and the Christian carpenter and the Christian plumber have more excess to donate. The system in Acts 2 was built on deep relational love which was built up by the Spirit in that church. When somebody had excess and there was a need, he donated out of the generosity of his heart. However, you can't really rely on that. I witnessed first hand the inefficiencies at Jesus People USA when I visited them. While it has done much better than secular communes in that it actually survived up to this point, people are still held hostage to receiving their provisions by the people who have the pooled resources. If you're fixing up an apartment and you run out of paint, you have to try and reach somebody by phone to get more paint, even if you've got another 6 good working hours left in the day. If instead these people actually had their own resources, somebody could just drive to the hardware store and pick up more paint.I think there can be, should be and must be a better system that can be devised that does not so woefully depend on human greed. Why would a Christian in one breath say that Acts 2 is the best way to live and then continue supporting a system that advocates the opposite of Acts 2?
Well, aside from every reference in the Bible I've read that has to do with an inheritance treats it as a positive thing, there is a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. I don't know your friend, but he has choices and in spite of the connections your dad has that his dad doesn't, he can still do pretty well for himself. But if you still feel bad about receiving all those handouts from Dad (which I didn't get, either btw), you can always voluntarily give the difference between your income and your friend's to your friend.That's the way the system works, but that doesn't mean its good. I'm fine with people doing it because thats the way the capitalist system works, but then you can't claim that we live in a meritocracy where everyone has equal opportunity. Everyone has opportunity and can work to get to the top, but it ain't equal.
A few things:I don't have solutions, I don't think communism is correct and I'm not even sure that government hand-outs make things better. But I think we should be collectively working towards a more just, equitable and fair society and I feel like government is the best vehicle we have for that at the moment. Why would I vote for a system that, at its heart, seems to be founded on un-Christian principles of greed, material wealth and inequality?
This is a good point. So why not put some of the wealth (notice I say "some" and not "all") in the hands of a collective group of people that can more objectively manage it while still being held accountable to the populace?
I think this is a false stereotype you have of how government aid can, should or could work. I think lots of people view government aid just as unemployment cheques or something. I have lots of problems with the unemployment cheques because of how its been mishandled and there are too many loop holes.
But government-funded services don't have to be just handouts. Governments can build hospitals which provide healing services to those that cannot afford private services. Governments can build more schools and pay teachers better to give kids a better education. Governments can build libraries and hockey arenas. Government can even help fund church-building!
Government can use tax dollars to eradicate famines in other parts of the world. Governments can fund affordable housing projects to get homeless people off the streets. Tax dollars can build roads and fund public transit systems. These aren't "handouts" to the unemployed gamer living in his parents basement smoking pot. These are programs and projects that need a large amount of capital that private companies would be wary of investing in but all lead to greater social capital. And they act to enable both the poor and wealthy to access services. A new library doesn't mean only poor people getting the "handout" can go there; it means anyone can go there.
I know its idealistic. And ironically, the reason it is idealistic is because of the system you wish to propagate whereby our current governments aren't run by the people and for the people but are rather run by more and more greed. Money talks. And lobby groups from corporations work. And big corporations don't want people spending time in libraries, they want them buying their products.
See my post to Sketcher as well as the link about inequality. "Inheritance" is not necessarily just the money you receive when your parents die. Its the money they are able to give you, by their own free choice, and by no merit of your own, throughout your childhood. Better schooling, better neighbourhood, better opportunities, less student debt, better employer connections etc.
Both Bill Gates and the Kardashians are extreme examples and neither represents the true situation. And what about Bill Gates' kids? Aren't they now just another Kardashian?
What happened to Give Unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's?
Yea I understand where you're coming from. I've thought a lot about this too. Conception is the most clear cut definition when two non-related cells join together to form a new type of entity. I personally think that if abortion clinics do exist in a free society, then they should at least not be government funded. And I don't think they should be free and anonymous. I think there has to be some level of responsibility in the people receiving them. It sickens me that some people now use abortion as a form of birth control, they think: "oh well, if I get pregnant, I'll just get an abortion!" They walk in, its free, its anonymous and the procedure is done in a few minutes.
I find that the more I read about these things, about caveats, and alterior motive, and "the greater good", and redistribution, the more anarchy seems like a good idea.
Edit: Oh, and whats wrong with being an unemployed gamer who lives with his parent?!
They are not. Instead, Biblical literalism or Fundamentalism and conservative politics are connected. Catholicism is pretty liberal except in the area of birth control and abortion. The mainline Protestant denominations are typically liberal politically.I've often wondered about this. Could someone explain it to me? I'm politically conservative myself and I'm seeking to be a Christian, but I want to know why the two are so often connected.