Can Christianity & Capitalism co-exist?

[revsdd]

And yes, I get it that theoretically, a capitalist economy can expand forever, because it's not physical, yes, but. Practically, when that happens, the currency becomes hilarious ($50 for a stick of gum), then worthless, and must be "re-created". It ALWAYS hurts the poorest the most. I'm not against capitalism. I'm against "Free Market Global Capitalism" as it currently exists. Like finding the "right" religion, there's probably a "Humanist Socialist Democratic Compassionate Creative Capitalism" that works for every culture.

More precisely, currency becomes worthless when a capitalist economy expands too quickly; when it gets out of control. Gradual expansion doesn't have the same impact. When out of control, I agree that capitalism hurts the poor the most.

 

[Mendalla]

I suppose, are you dating the flood back 6000 years ago? Are there not other cultures that recorded something similar that would take it further back? Anyway better not derail the thread any further....although there are many forms of currency that drive civilizations.

No, I'm saying the Flood never happened. If you believe it did, our conversation is over because you are clearly operating from a different paradigm than me. I'm saying that life began 3.5 billion years ago and predation has been there from very early in that history. In fact, the first predators were water dwelling creatures since all life began in water so flooding could not have had any impact on that development.

The "Flood", for me, is a mythological construct that evolved in multiple cultures because all of our oldest civilizations began on flood plains and flooding was a natural part of their experience. Memories of great floods that did massive damage likely lingered and got rolled into their myths and legends.

 

[Waterfall]

No, I'm saying the Flood never happened. If you believe it did, our conversation is over because you are clearly operating from a different paradigm than me. I'm saying that life began 3.5 billion years ago and predation has been there from very early in that history. In fact, the first predators were water dwelling creatures since all life began in water so flooding could not have had any impact on that development.

The "Flood", for me, is a mythological construct that evolved in multiple cultures because all of our oldest civilizations began on flood plains and flooding was a natural part of their experience. Memories of great floods that did massive damage likely lingered and got rolled into their myths and legends.

Not sure why you view "the flood" as the beginning of life? I see it as life that had already existed when this occurred, so evolution could still have happened.

 

[RitaTG]

It's quite possible for a church supper to be such a place Steven. I'd like to imagine the free suppers my church offers to be such places. A key thing that must be involved is that Christ must actually be presented. I've been to meals some churches have put on that don't present Christ, but rather just serve food so the church can fund raise. Rather than presenting Christ, these churches seemed more interested in running mock restaurants for the glory of said churches.

Very very judgmental and unfair ...... I am disappointed ......
I have noticed a theme ...........

 

[chansen]

Not sure why you view "the flood" as the beginning of life?

He isn't.

I see it as life that had already existed when this occurred, so evolution could still have happened.

Ir didn't occur. This is going to be a really big stumbling block.

 

[Mendalla]

Not sure why you view "the flood" as the beginning of life? I see it as life that had already existed when this occurred, so evolution could still have happened.

I don't. I clearly said that I don't even think the flood happened. You said:

Some say it was the Flood that changed that.

And I was simply responding that the Flood narrative in the Bible is a myth and has no bearing whatsoever on the evolution of life, including the development of carnivorous and predatory behaviour.

Carnivores and omnivores have always existed and anyone who argues otherwise is living in la-la land where everything is happiness and roses and will likely end up being eaten by the tiger they are erroneously trying to turn into a herbivore.

 

[Waterfall]

He isn't.


Ir didn't occur. This is going to be a really big stumbling block.

Bowing out of this one.

 

[Waterfall]

I don't. I clearly said that I don't even think the flood happened. You said:



And I was simply responding that the Flood narrative in the Bible is a myth and has no bearing whatsoever on the evolution of life, including the development of carnivorous and predatory behaviour.

What in your opinion would cause a herbivore to become carnivorous over time?

 

[Mendalla]

What in your opinion would cause a herbivore to become carnivorous over time?

This is too complex a topic for here. It does happen but rarely. The reverse happens, too. More often, one or the other will start supplementing their diet with the other's food supply leading them to become omnivores (e.g. bears are descended from a clearly carnivorous line but many species are omnivorous now). However, many carnivorous species are descended as far back as we can go from other carnivores so the switch you propose simply never happened that we can find in the record. As I said, there have always been carnivores just as there have always been herbivores. They aren't some aberration caused by an event.

 

[revsdd]

"On the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them, "Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you will be my people...(Jeremiah 7;22-23--NRSV)."

Other translations cannot believe that Jeremiah's sermon in the Temple would claim that God never revealed the sacrifice system to Moses; so they add, "I did not ONLY speak.." But the NRSV provides the natural shocking translation.

I am a little disappointed that in support of your position you have only a proof-text which you yourself have interpreted as a stand alone verse without context.

We agree on the issue of the translation. Many translations add "only" or "just" as an interpretive device. NRSV has the correct literal translation of the verse

The implication is that Hebrew culture demanded a sacrifice system similar to that of their pagan contemporaries, so God agreed to work within such a system and reveal Himself in that system, even though it was not God's preference! Consider in this light the fact that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is treated in the NT as the sacrifice to end all sacrifices!

I don't agree that this is the necessary implication of the verse you cite. There are three ways to interpret what the verse is saying:

1) It's a statement of divine chronology (thus, "first I asked for obedience, and only afterward did I ask for sacrifice.)

2) It's a statement of divine priority (thus, "since I asked for obedience first and sacrifice after, obedience is more important than sacrifice.)

3) It's a statement of divine motive (thus, "I only really wanted obedience, but since everybody else has animal sacrifice, I'll ask you for them as well.")

Given the broader context of the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures on sacrifice, I find the first interpretation obvious, and in choosing between the second and third, I find the second much more plausible than the third, given that criticisms of animal sacrifice are never on the basis that the animals are being sacrificed but rather that the ritual sacrifice has become more important than living as God wanted the people to live. Nor is there ever any divine statement that sacrifices are a concession to the surrounding culture. Basically, such arguments seem to me to be simply ways of helping us escape from the (to us) uncomfortable idea that God asked for a blood sacrifice. God did, but clearly made the sacrifice less important than overall lifestyle.

Now, no one would argue, obviously, that animal sacrifices weren't engaged in by the other cultures that surrounded the ancient Hebrews. But I see no firm evidence supporting the contention that Israel wanted to sacrifice only because others were sacrificing (and that God allowed this as a concession) and there are certainly aspects of ancient Hebrew life which deliberately differentiated the Hebrews from the surrounding culture (most obviously, male circumcision.) In fact, a significant difference between the two would be a different understanding of the purpose of the ritual sacrifice. In Canaanite and other ancient religions, sacrifice was for the purpose of appeasing the gods. As the Hebrew Scriptures make clear, appeasement wasn't the purpose of Hebrew sacrifices. In other words, the sacrifice in and of itself didn't "appease" God - it was the obedience reflected in conducting the sacrifice as God commanded, and the obedience required to appease God went far beyond simply obediently applying the rules of sacrifice and extended into everyday life. One had to live as God desired, and not just engage in the ritual God asked for. All the condemnations of sacrifice in the Hebrew Scriptures are condemnations of the motive - condemnations of the apparent belief that in simply making the sacrifice something has been accomplished. The ritual was not teaching obedience to God.

All we can say with any certainty is that the ancient Hebrew religion had similarities with ancient Canaanite (and other neighbouring cultures) practices. Indeed, Norman Gottwald has argued that the influence of the Canaanite religion on the Hebrews had to do not with encouraging animal sacrifices but in adding agricultural sacrifices (ie, adding grain sacrifices to the animal sacrifices that the Israelites were already engaging in.)

When Jesus is asked why His teaching on divorce contradicts the more liberal teaching of Moses (which was oppressive towards women), Jesus replies that Moses teaching only reflected "the hardness of their hearts." In other words, they were not culturally ready to hear what God wanted to teach them! Perhaps that same principle can be applied to some of the violence associated with the Israelite conquest of Canaan.

If I agreed with you on this point, this is not the story I would use as a support text. I would be more inclined to work with the story of Israel asking for a king to lead them, "such as all the other nations have." (1 Samuel 8:5) To which God eventually responds, after some interplay between the people, Samuel and God, including warnings about what the people are asking for, ""listen to them and give them a king." (1 Samuel 8:22) Here is the only story in the Bible that I'm aware of in which God actually concedes to the wishes of the people that things be done their way and in accordance with the customs of the other nations rather than according to God's preference for Israel.

 

[Waterfall]

Which begs the question: why does an alll powerful God require animal sacrifice?

 

[revsdd]

Which begs the question: why does an alll powerful God require animal sacrifice?

God is God. God requires nothing. God asks for obedience and faithfulness.

 

[Mendalla]

Which begs the question: why does an alll powerful God require animal sacrifice?

I like Steven's answer. In polytheistic systems, there was some notion of it being an actual gift to the deity (apparently Zeus et al. like their meat) but I'm not sure that applies to the Hebrews/Jews.

That said, the more cynical, but somewhat less serious answer is that the priests are hungry. (not sure about the Hebrews/Jews, but in some ancient cults, the priests ate the flesh of the sacrificed animal).

 

[Waterfall]

This is too complex a topic for here. It does happen but rarely. The reverse happens, too. More often, one or the other will start supplementing their diet with the other's food supply leading them to become omnivores (e.g. bears are descended from a clearly carnivorous line but many species are omnivorous now). However, many carnivorous species are descended as far back as we can go from other carnivores so the switch you propose simply never happened that we can find in the record. As I said, there have always been carnivores just as there have always been herbivores. They aren't some aberration caused by an event.

How fast do you suppose humans would change if our food or water supply was depleted?

 

[BetteTheRed]

Which begs the question: why does an alll powerful God require animal sacrifice?

Crossan describes it as an ancient response to putting their vision of the Divine in terms of the social reality they encountered. If you had an enemy you wished to convert to friendship, or a friendship you wished to maintain, you'd do so via either a shared meal or a gift. So, I give a goat to Yahweh, Yahweh consumes the blood on Yahweh's altar, then returns the meat to me as a gift in return. Then I roast the goat and share a meal with my god.

 

[BetteTheRed]

How fast do you suppose humans would change if our food or water supply was depleted?

If you'd like to see that dynamic in action, look no further than Africa. Pictures of people scooping water from muddy puddles always makes me give my head a shake. 'Our' level of waste is unimaginable to much of the world.

 

[Mendalla]

How fast do you suppose humans would change if our food or water supply was depleted?

Well, we are already omnivores and we know humans can live, though with some issues, without meat so probably fairly quickly if it was a lack of meat that was the food supply issue. It would still take generations to fully adapt, but we could survive. One of the great things about us as a species is our adaptability.

That said, I suspect that it would be harder for us to become pure carnivores if our edible plant supply was running out, to be honest. Save for a few fad diets that generally do not end well, I can't think of anyone who has lived purely on fat and protein for any length of time.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Well, we are already omnivores and we know humans can live, though with some issues, without meat so probably fairly quickly if it was a lack of meat that was the food supply issue. It would still take generations to fully adapt, but we could survive. One of the great things about us as a species is our adaptability.

That said, I suspect that it would be harder for us to become pure carnivores if our edible plant supply was running out, to be honest. Save for a few fad diets that generally do not end well, I can't think of anyone who has lived purely on fat and protein for any length of time.

Inuit people, but they are genetically suited for this, I believe. And part of the trick, as Farley Mowat found out in Never Cry Wolf, is to eat the whole thing. The fat and marrow of critters contains the micronutrients they consumed via plant matter.

 

[Mendalla]

Inuit people, but they are genetically suited for this, I believe.

Good point, but that's an example of people who have adapted over dozens or hundreds of generations to living in the tundra and ice of the North. I doubt a turnover like that would happen quickly.

 

[Waterfall]

I like Steven's answer. In polytheistic systems, there was some notion of it being an actual gift to the deity (apparently Zeus et al. like their meat) but I'm not sure that applies to the Hebrews/Jews.

That said, the more cynical, but somewhat less serious answer is that the priests are hungry. (not sure about the Hebrews/Jews, but in some ancient cults, the priests ate the flesh of the sacrificed animal).

Which is odd due to the fact the Jews feel God is beyond description....