Jesus was violent one time in the Bible and it was against Capitalists

[ArmenianJohn]

why not focus on one issue at a time

"Greed" exists everywhere, independent of "Capitalism"

Jesus was obviously not condemning all private enterprise and small business owners like Lydia of Thyatira, but was obviously focused on "Greed" taking over hearts & minds in the Temple of Jerusalem

the main focus was spiritual, not abstract economic theories as yet unformalized for most of the next two millennia

I don't think you understood my OP based on this response. Your response indicates that you (like many others in this thread) are focused solely on the word "capitalism" and nothing else I said in the OP. I can't really help beyond that.

 

[NotreDame]

Seriously?

If your goal here is to just prove to everybody how smart you are, you’d do better to answer their questions rather than whatever this sort of thing is that you’re doing.

I can read wikipedia, too, and see that economic historians consider capitalism to have developed some 1000+ years later. What I don’t know is why these earlier manifestations of trade aren’t considered “capitalism “ even though they certainly appear to fit the definition.



Yes, I did explain what it means. You even quoted it.



Your definition describes an ideal or perfect market. Most real life markets are imperfect.

I’m not here to answer your questions. If you have questions, research your questions yourself for an answer. I’m not your research engine.

I do not need to tell you what economic system existed at the time of Jesus to tell you it wasn’t capitalism. The basis of this knowledge far exceeds a Wikipedia entry and is based upon, in part, reading the books of people smarter than me who devoted a lot of ink to the subject.

At the moment I couldn’t care less to know or argue what other economic system existed at the time of Jesus, although I can make an educated guess it could aptly be described as largely agrarian, trade based.

Your definition describes an ideal or perfect market. Most real life markets are imperfect

The economic market, like capitalism, isn’t the cause for your effect, people are.

 

[NotreDame]

I don't think you understood my OP based on this response. Your response indicates that you (like many others in this thread) are focused solely on the word "capitalism" and nothing else I said in the OP. I can't really help beyond that.

So you are blaming people on your poor word choice? You chose the word capitalism but just kidding, not really?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Huh? I edited my earlier reply to clarify my point a bit.

so you're agreeing, that imperfect market failures of capitalism are bad

so, perfectly successful capitalist markets are good ?

and, seemingly, Jesus was condemning market imperfections & failures of capitalism, not perfectly successful capitalism

 

[ArmenianJohn]

So you are blaming people on your poor word choice? You chose the word capitalism but just kidding, not really?

No, not "kidding", but you completely miss the point of the OP - you're focused on the word "capitalist". Also, you're asking me to define greed and God's Will for you, which are things you need to learn for yourself and not from a response in an internet forum from me. I gave you a couple sources for wisdom, the Bible and the Pope of your own Church - I don't know what more you want than that. Pope Francis is a wise man of God.

 

[NotreDame]

No, I'm more interested in learning why you and ToBeLoved are so interested in denying that there were any privately owned businesses in biblical times. What, I wonder, does it get you?

This is a fantastic Strawman argument. Could you actually try to render your replies any more irrelevant?

I’ve never said privately owned anything didn’t exist at the time of Jesus. What I’ve questioned is your asinine notion private ownership means capitalism existed, and I’ve criticized your claim capitalism existed at the time of Jesus. You’ve said nothing, providing nothing, to supper either one.

Obfuscating with a Strawman argument doesn’t detract from the fact your assertions are unsupported.

 

[Speedwell]

How about you establish how and why it that business was capitalist as opposed to presuming it.

Your assumption that “privately owned” then capitalism existed, is false. Capitalism involves much more than “privately owned.”

Not according to the definition of capitalism posted by ToBeLoved.

Definition of capitalism


: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

If you have a different definition of capitalism, let us see it.

 

[NotreDame]

No, not "kidding", but you completely miss the point of the OP - you're focused on the word "capitalist". Also, you're asking me to define greed and God's Will for you, which are things you need to learn for yourself and not from a response in an internet forum from me. I gave you a couple sources for wisdom, the Bible and the Pope of your own Church - I don't know what more you want than that. Pope Francis is a wise man of God.

I do not answer to or receive any instruction from the Pope. And the Pope has no affiliation with my specific denomination. Awfully presumptuous of you there.

So, in other words, you created a thread for the purpose of making some spiritually deep point about capitalism, but not really capitalism, in a politics forum, fooling all of us. Have you checked the calendar? This isn’t April 1st.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Most modern people have never had to handle animals in groups. But I have extensively.

Look:

14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. 15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16 And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.”


I had to drive a variety of animals at various times (me, as the lone herder often, responsible) --

--Cattle, both individually sometimes, and sometimes as a small herd

--Horses, both individually and sometimes as a small herd

--Pigs (usually individually, but a couple of times I helped with multiple pigs to drive them)

--Chickens (sometimes to scare them off garden vegetables, sometimes to get them into henhouse)

And even once or twice I've been around when other kinds of animals have been herded. Sometimes we helped others. I remember that goats are somewhat contrary.

Ok, get the picture?

We were not supposed to strike them. If you tried to, you'd get corrected. They'd show you how. Hear me?

Striking them was a greenhorn mistake, for about 99% of animals. It would usually backfire. I know this personally, cause I was green and stupid once....

It's what someone who had no clue would do -- hit them. You could tell they needed to learn a few things if they hit any animals. (there are some less common situations, like pushing an animal along a chute towards a slaughter, where it really does know it's very bad to go along the chute, and then it's not at all like herding in an open space. For that, even a prod can be used, if waving a hand won't do it.)

Now....I think Christ Jesus knew shepherds, and was smart.

So, I'm about 99% thinking He did not hit even one. He waved the whip cord in the air, like any competent hand, and they moved, as they normally will.

But for the moneychangers, dove sellers, He overturned their tables, and spoke words to them.


Dear reader, Is that 'violence' to you? You tell me.

It's not what the word 'violence' means to me.

People are not animals, for one thing. But both people and animals are driven by fear and fear can be induced violently in the form of physical abuse or the threat of physical abuse.

When you are swinging a whip, as Jesus was, you are threatening physical force, and that is a violent action. It doesn't matter if you follow through with the physical force or not, it is a violent action. You say that in your opinion it is not, since in your opinion He never actually hit anyone.

Well, we don't know whether He hit anyone or not. Your opinion is He didn't. My opinion is he probably did make contact a couple times, maybe more. We don't know for sure either way and we can't tell from the Scripture whether He did or didn't. What we do know from Scripture is that he made a scourge with several cords (not a singular "whip" really, but a scourge) and swung it as he drove them out. That's a violent action whether he made contact or not.

And His violence was justified, it wasn't sin or bad or anything like that. He is God and cannot sin. So I find it odd that you treat His violent action as some kind of sin or something bad.

 

[Speedwell]

Right, Lydia of Thyatira, a private small business owning capitalist, was the first Christian convert in Europe

Lydia of Thyatira - Wikipedia

So, Christianity is pro Capitalist ?

What I'm trying to find out is why Notre Dame and ToBeLoved are so anxious to deny that there was even such a thing as capitalism at the time.

I don't think Christianity is pro-Capitalist or anti-capitalist ether. Capitalism is just an economic system, a tool, if you will. Is Christianity for or against hammers and shovels?

 

[NotreDame]

Not according to the definition of capitalism posted by ToBeLoved.




If you have a different definition of capitalism, let us see it.

Two points. First, the dictionary definition isn’t too bad, but the meaning you provided is much more than your asinine notion of private ownership=capitalism.

Second, I gave a similar meaning to Illuvatar.

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned, private property exists (accompanied by some underlying theory of acquisition of property) something is produced by the labor of others, sold, exchanged, markets, and capital accumulation.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I’m not here to answer your questions.

So, why are you here then? Just to snipe at people and tell them they’re wrong?

At the moment I couldn’t care less to know or argue what other economic system existed at the time of Jesus, although I can make an educated guess it could aptly be described as largely agrarian, trade based.

ah, so you don’t even know.

The economic market, like capitalism, isn’t the cause for your effect, people are.

I don’t even know how that’s relevant to what you responded to.

so you're agreeing, that imperfect market failures of capitalism are bad

so, perfectly successful capitalist markets are good ?

and, seemingly, Jesus was condemning market imperfections & failures of capitalism, not perfectly successful capitalism

No, I’m saying that imperfect markets can, and frequently do, exist within capitalist systems. The existence of market distortions does not negate the system’s classification as capitalist.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I do not answer to or receive any instruction from the Pope. And the Pope has no affiliation with my specific denomination. Awfully presumptuous of you there.

ALL Roman Catholics are under the Pope! Are you kidding with me? What's your angle?

So, in other words, you created a thread for the purpose of making some spiritually deep point about capitalism, but not really capitalism, in a politics forum, fooling all of us. Have you checked the calendar? This isn’t April 1st.

I created a thread which is explained in my OP. It is about Trump and his spiritual advisers in particular. I think it's pretty clear. I think where you and others are up in arms is that you're focused on the word "capitalist" to the point that you are not reading or understanding the OP in its entirety.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Two points. First, the dictionary definition isn’t too bad, but the meaning you provided is much more than your asinine notion of private ownership=capitalism.

Second, I gave a similar meaning to Illuvatar.

To recap for the class:

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned, private property exists (accompanied by some underlying theory of acquisition of property) something is produced by the labor of others, sold, exchanged, markets, and capital accumulation.

How does the sort of commerce that existed in the temple (or in the rest of that society) not meet the definition you provided?

 

[Speedwell]

How about you establish how and why it that business was capitalist as opposed to presuming it.

Your assumption that “privately owned” then capitalism existed, is false. Capitalism involves much more than “privately owned.”

Not according to the definition posted by ToBeLoved:

Definition of capitalism


: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Do you find anything that definition that you can demonstrate was not a part of economic life during biblical times?

 

[NotreDame]

ah, so you don’t even know.



I don’t even know how that’s relevant to what you responded to.



No, I’m saying that imperfect markets can, and frequently do, exist within capitalist systems. The existence of market distortions does not negate the system’s classification as capitalist.

So, why are you here then? Just to snipe at people and tell them they’re wrong?

Wow! You think a lot of yourself if you think myself, or anyone at this forum is here to answer your questions. Who knew this website and the people who visit do so to answer your questions.

ah, so you don’t even know

Woah, you’re fast! I never claimed to know but so what? That’s what separates you and I. I do know, however, capitalism didn’t exist at the time of Christ and you have not shown it to exist then.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

What I'm trying to find out is why Notre Dame and ToBeLoved are so anxious to deny that there was even such a thing as capitalism at the time.

I don't think Christianity is pro-Capitalist or anti-capitalist ether. Capitalism is just an economic system, a tool, if you will. Is Christianity for or against hammers and shovels?

I agree that Christianity is neither pro- nor anti- capitalism. As you said, it's just an economic system and has its pros and cons like any other. A tool, yes.

I think in American culture (religion?) we are so conditioned to believe in Capitalism as something much more than a system or tool and that it triggers some people very strongly when they perceive "capitalism" as being "under attack". I think that's what we're seeing with a lot of people in this thread, based on their responses.

 

[Speedwell]

ALL Roman Catholics are under the Pope! Are you kidding with me? What's your angle?

Despite what you might infer from the username, Notre Dame is not a Roman Catholic. The clues lie in the nickname "domer" which refers to an alumnus of the University of Notre Dame and the religion specification "Pentacostal."

 

[NotreDame]

Not according to the definition posted by ToBeLoved:
Do you find anything that definition that you can demonstrate was not a part of economic life during biblical times?

It’s You Burden to show that definition manifested during the time of Christ. I have No Evidence that meaning of capitalism existed at the time of Christ. None.

And that definition of capitalism involves much more than your facile notion of private ownership=capitalism. Indeed, the meaning I invoked much more than your asinine idea of private ownership=capitalism.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Despite what you might infer from the username, Notre Dame is not a Roman Catholic. The clues lie in the nickname "domer" which refers to an alumnus of the University of Notre Dame and the religion specification "Pentacostal."

Thank you - I didn't notice the "Pentecostal" tag. Notre Dame is the most prominent Roman Catholic institution - means "Our Lady" in honor of Holy Mary, Mother of God, so it's usually very devout Catholics who go there, but I should have realized that that's not always the case and that a good number of non-Catholics do go there as well.

One prominent example of a famous non-Catholic "domer" would be Ara Parseghian, one of their greatest football coaches of all time, who was Armenian and protestant.

Thank you for pointing that out to me, i wouldn't have noticed otherwise!