Can Christianity & Capitalism co-exist?

[GeoFee]

As the thumb opposes the fingers to make the hand useful to the body, so I will oppose the spirit of capitalism and the religious institutions which explicitly or implicitly endorse it.

"...sees wealth and possessions as spiritual hazards; Capitalism sees them as the height of motivation and badges of achievement." Mike

I find Aldous Huxley helpful. The quote below picks up and amplifies what Mike notices above.

"... its upon fashion, cars, and gadgets, upon news and the advertising for which news exists, that our present industrial and economic system depends for its proper functioning. For, as ex-President Hoover pointed out not long ago, this system cannot work unless the demand for non-necessaries is not merely kept up, but continually expanded; and of course it cannot be kept up and expanded exept by incessant appeals to greed, competitiveness, and love of aimless stimulation. Persons have always been a prey to distractions, which are the original sin of the mind; but never before today has an attempt been made to organize and exploit distractions, to make of them, because of their economic importance, the core and vital center of human life, to idealize them as the highest manifestation of mental activity. Ours is an age of systematized irrelevances, and the imbecile within us has become one of the Titans, upon whose shoulders rests the weight of the social and economic system. Recollectedness, or the overcoming of distractions, has never been more necessary than now; it has also, we may guess, never been so difficult." "The Divine Within"

We may also take time to consider Socrates on pandering as a practice serving to distract from the spiritual work of responsibility to the divine imperative present at the heart of our personal being in the world.

The fate of capitalist ideology endorsed by religious benedictions is graphically represented in the 18th chapter of Revelation. Here is a snippet:

"Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities."

"'My house will be a house of prayer'; but you have made it 'a den of robbers.'" Luke

George

 

[Waterfall]

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.

There are instances in history where mothers ate tbeir own children to stay alive and others have drank urine...Democracy can change very quickly and it can become everyman for themself given the circunstance.

 

[Waterfall]

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.

Good explanation... as long as we dont want to be stewards or friends with animals. Historically we seem to overestimate our ability to influence God with unsaintly acts.

 

[chansen]

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

Probably because people made it up. The Aztec gods required sacrifices, too. Somehow, it makes sense in primitive cultures if you kill something you cherish to please a god. Like it's some sort of insane barter. Maybe once upon a time, someone or something died, and that year the rains were plentiful, so it became a practice to kill another like it. We just don't know.

 

[Waterfall]

Probably because people made it up. The Aztec gods required sacrifices, too. Somehow, it makes sense in primitive cultures if you kill something you cherish to please a god. Like it's some sort of insane barter. Maybe once upon a time, someone or something died, and that year the rains were plentiful, so it became a practice to kill another like it. We just don't know.

Agree and superstition and ignorance

 

[BetteTheRed]

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.

You could be right. Scientists think that the genetic mutation for kinky hair (which is cooler on the scalp than shiny hair) arose fairly quickly during a warming period at the equator.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Probably because people made it up. The Aztec gods required sacrifices, too. Somehow, it makes sense in primitive cultures if you kill something you cherish to please a god. Like it's some sort of insane barter. Maybe once upon a time, someone or something died, and that year the rains were plentiful, so it became a practice to kill another like it. We just don't know.

OTOH, I don't know how else you get a critter from on the hoof into food other than by killing it. It's why many cultures (Jewish, Muslim) insist on verification of a painless kill.

 

[Seeler]

I seem to remember hearing or reading that the system of sacrifices in the Hebrew religion was a way of sharing. People brought their 'first fruits' to the temple and they were offered up to God. The priests and leaders, who did not tend herds or grow crops, received a portion. And the rest was distributed among the people - including the widows and orphans.
Like a system of taxation, those who had a lot were required to sacrifice a lot (a lamb, a heifer), those with little sacrifices little (a dove) - but all were fed. A bit of socialism here.
Perhaps someone could explain it better.

 

[Seeler]

Reminds me of a church supper. Everyone brings their offering (casserole, salad, rolls, pie) according to their ability. It is offered to God in a blessing, and distributed to the people. Everyone is fed, whether they contributed or not, and there is usually more than enough.

 

[Luce NDs]

Reminds me of a barbeque that the lord loved the smell of ... roasted chickens that the chicken did not think that much of and regressed or retreated in flight on a spit ... round and round ...

 

[Jaebius]

Reminds me of a barbeque that the lord loved the smell of ... roasted chickens that the chicken did not think that much of and regressed or retreated in flight on a spit ... round and round ...

Chic Shaker? Or do you think deck Lord ice more of a Crime Hubert fan. Did you chow date deck former had now bought deck later? Actually for me, I crime mix Central Rogers Roasters. Now day show en wack yummy in my tiny.

 

[Luce NDs]

I have to go now and take my wife out to the grill ... as I've been mist ... bin gone awhile and you know all about absence and abstracts!

 

[Jaebius]

I have to go now and take my wife out to the grill ... as I've been mist ... bin gone awhile and you know all about absence and abstracts!

Imagine, taking your wife our to determine grill come check sand Eleanor it comes date you an your burieds sand grill up juicy creaks an show en sighs did we end. Have you no chameleon Circle?

 

[Mystic]

Steve, perhaps it would have been better to put this in the context of modern scholarly opinion. The current standard OT Theology is Walter Brueggemann, "The Theology of the Old Testament." On p. 652 he quotes Ludwig Koehler, "There is no suggestion anywhere in the Old Testament that sacrifice...was instituted by God." Then on p. 678 Brueggemann adds: "See Amos 5:25, Jer 7:22 for hints that some of Israel regarded sacrifice, in principle, as an aberration." In Amos 5:22 God asks rhetorically, "Did you bring my sacrifices and offerings the 40 years in the wilderness?" Implication: "Of course not." The Harper Collins Study Bible adds the footnote: "Contrary to the Pentateuchal account of Israel's history...Amos asserts that sacrifices and offerings were not given during he wandering in the wilderness (see also Jer 7:21-26)." Amos 5:25 should probably be considered the background of Jer 7:22: "For in 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." So I agree with scholars who think that your interpretation is imposed on Jer 7:22 and overlooks the parallel in Amos 5:25.
How then can this be reconciled with God's engagement with Israel's sacrifice system? In my view, God chooses to reveal His will within a human sacrifice system that He never installed. God's concession to allow Israel a king is an apt parallel, but is not cited by Jesus. Jesus rejects the Pentateuch's liberal patriarchal conditions for divorce on the grounds of "the hardness of your hearts (Mark 10:5) and the superior model of Genesis 2:24. To me, this means that the Jews were not open to God's preference due to culturally conditioned desires. So Mark 10:5 is an important Jesus parallel.

 

[Delightful Life]

"Reality loves those who oppose her most"

 

[Luce NDs]

"Reality loves those who oppose her most"

Enter this scene with an alternate reality ... virtue unseen? Tis an ugly spot we find our selves in compared to the ethereal realm "out-there" as softer to fall thro' ... the hard hearted law-followers would agree tho' if the law can be bent to swing things their way.

Would Trump or any other hard nosed politician use these "means" to their advantage or his personal gain? A process to brings NDs to "means" and thus the paradigm drifts off ... unknowing! Thus ID is ... and IT is out there ... eliminated from the realm of extensive emotions! Is that essence of departure or just a woebegone ghost of intellect? O'w oe is me ... excluded in principle as Paul falling from the carrier ... a hoers?

He didn't like it ... causing anxiety ... and the stress about how to react ... he didn't know due to Classic Greek Wisdom being lost in a Roman Tic incident in spatial realms ... it was to forever bug the hard set in the story that actually flows with the evolution of word ... a kind of demi-urge if you can catch the rye flow of intellect and quantum emotions as they pass somewhere in time ... creating a timeless fiction ... the existence as sole singularity that could deal with crappy data ... psyche pathe IHC (pathological tic)? Some attach the title "pate", or even paddy (brain-crap) that when dried in an arid place can be burned to warm one in the dark of night ... a skill built upon by the E phraim 'd version of the mono's ole thing that will lie to get what is unconsciously wished for ... off-spring season (as Jacked)?

Without reason, rationale, and intellectual processing ... some believe the paradigm (means) are great to dispose of in the creation of physical wealth ... capitalistic opposition to population control as the source of people is the "had-ass-awe" ... of the marketplace or the curve that follows from sensations of that observation (hind-ND perspective) that drives A' mon to face up to the one that has envy about what hangs there betwixt eM ... as a bewitching fiction listed in the bible as that essence that comes between an great number of people. This applies especially to those that haven't learned how to safely dispose of such strange angst. This latter item being in essence a virtue 've Strange-Love as we fear teaching children of the capital nature of how opposing sects are sucked into the unconscious value of this non-physical entity (dark energy) utilized in ad-vert-I'z-NG! That's Ur boy ... a bit blue due to regression ... makes the heart yearn unconsciously ...

• aD ... in classic tongues "overhead" or beyond us!
• Vert ... old Anglo for the right to process in the forest; including cultivation of th mother-nature (Maid-Mary?)
• I'z ... the sum of what I sees as integral intelligence scattered in the paradigm (means, or medium?)
• NG ... non-governmental, or a non-gamma series as the light goes on forever in a fainting mode (red-shift phenomenon)
• Lam ... old Semite icon for a spark observed in a dark spot? Like a candle in a tin Kahn? Reflective dark confinement, progressing on to the black body reflection theory that summarizes the soul as a silhouette of something else again?

Let the summer I'z in begin ... let us acknowledge that what we believed simple incarnates as not ... and thus the complexity of religion based on something that "appears as it" isn't ... thus naïveté can be a delicate destructive force ...!

 

[Luce NDs]

Note: the previous entry is only opinion for consideration by those that would take a poly-perspective view of things that have infinite and infinitesimal views by scattered turtles that you encounter all the way to the bottom ... this will be taken different by hard shelled ... the in-vert-a-brate? Some are coated in accrued bones ... thus the understanding difficulty as expressed in satire and other literary devices for personnel that would look deeper than the outer bones ... of the story ... which appears defined as a necessary lie!

Innocents or innocence are not to be learned in a rigid surrounding ... thus progressive wisdom is still out-there! Possibly due to the laziness about the earning curve ... a wend (old word for a curve, as the donkey turns) towards intellect? Po-Bare is naked intellectual chit ... understood only when in a bloody or humorous state ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Imagine, taking your wife our to determine grill come check sand Eleanor it comes date you an your burieds sand grill up juicy creaks an show en sighs did we end. Have you no chameleon Circle?

Contrary to many beliefs all things change thus the alternation of mates in real life and what is in the extended mind when you encounter your far out soul mate ... the whole or wholly thing ... being that the soul/mind/psyche is said to be fictional (imaginary) by authorities that don't know about the elusive nature of soul ... it appears incarnate ... appears as it appears it isn't?

Tis one of the curiosities in humanistic communication ... you never know what anything really means in virtue of the lack of source information (intelligence)?

 

[revsdd]

Steve, perhaps it would have been better to put this in the context of modern scholarly opinion. The current standard OT Theology is Walter Brueggemann, "The Theology of the Old Testament." On p. 652 he quotes Ludwig Koehler, "There is no suggestion anywhere in the Old Testament that sacrifice...was instituted by God." Then on p. 678 Brueggemann adds: "See Amos 5:25, Jer 7:22 for hints that some of Israel regarded sacrifice, in principle, as an aberration." In Amos 5:22 God asks rhetorically, "Did you bring my sacrifices and offerings the 40 years in the wilderness?" Implication: "Of course not." The Harper Collins Study Bible adds the footnote: "Contrary to the Pentateuchal account of Israel's history...Amos asserts that sacrifices and offerings were not given during he wandering in the wilderness (see also Jer 7:21-26)." Amos 5:25 should probably be considered the background of Jer 7:22: "For in 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." So I agree with scholars who think that your interpretation is imposed on Jer 7:22 and overlooks the parallel in Amos 5:25.
How then can this be reconciled with God's engagement with Israel's sacrifice system? In my view, God chooses to reveal His will within a human sacrifice system that He never installed. God's concession to allow Israel a king is an apt parallel, but is not cited by Jesus. Jesus rejects the Pentateuch's liberal patriarchal conditions for divorce on the grounds of "the hardness of your hearts (Mark 10:5) and the superior model of Genesis 2:24. To me, this means that the Jews were not open to God's preference due to culturally conditioned desires. So Mark 10:5 is an important Jesus parallel.

Was off WC2 yesterday in deference to little things like having to have a sermon written for Sunday, so didn't have a chance to check in.

I should, I think, first clarify (if there's a misunderstanding) that I'm not arguing that the ancient Hebrew animal sacrifices arose in a vacuum. Obviously the surrounding cultures sacrificed animals and the Hebrews would have been aware of it. I should also point out that I have not said that "sacrifice was instituted by God," in Koehler's words. I did say that God "commanded" the sacrifices - in the sense of setting down the rules and rituals for how, when and by whom the sacrifices were to be made. Were sacrifices already happening? Of course they were. In the context of the narrative, they date back, as I noted, to the story of Cain and Abel, where God is said to have approved of animal sacrifice. Were the Hebrews continuing a "pre-Hebrew" practice? Absolutely.

I continue, however, to go back to the story of Israel's desire for a king. By the way, while I admire the preference for a link to Jesus' ministry (ie, his teaching on divorce) I continue to suggest for various reasons that the story in 1 Samuel is far more relevant to this particular discussion. Why? Primarily, because there's no specific reference in Jesus' teaching to the practices of the surrounding cultures on divorce. This was an example of a concession by God based on the hardness of the people's hearts as Jesus pointed out. There's no specific references to the surrounding culture - although I concede that it may be inferred. The 1 Samuel story on the other hand has a vigorous interplay between the people, Samuel and God, in which the people specifically ask to be like all the other nations - and God here again makes a concession. They can be like the other nations and have a king. They will be just like the other nations. There will be consequences, but they can live as the world lives so to speak.

There, for me, is the difference with the issue of animal sacrifice. God takes an existing practice and redefines it, as I suggested in an earlier post. The Hebrew understanding of the purpose of sacrifice becomes very different from the pagan understanding of the purpose of sacrifice. The pagans appease their gods with sacrifice, suggesting that the sacrifice itself is enough. For the Hebrews, engaging in the sacrifice isn't enough. Engaging in the sacrifice according to the rituals defined by God is merely a demonstration of faithfulness and obedience, and has to be matched by all other aspects of their life. More than just making sacrifices, God demands that the people be transformed; their lives reoriented according to a God who, in spite of the sacrifices, is not bloodthirsty but is rather compassionate and forgiving, and who expects those same qualities to be displayed by the people in return. Thus, the criticism by later prophets of the sacrificial system as it had evolved, where the sacrifices had become an end in themselves rather than a means to an end - the end being faithful and compassionate living in obedience to God.

We may, I believe, simply be dealing with semantics over the word "concession" on this issue, I suppose. You see this as a concession by God to pagan practices. I don't see it as a concession. A concession is God's response to "we want a king like all the other nations," and God allowing the people to have a king like all the other nations. Here, I see God not making a concession to allow the Hebrews to be like the surrounding nations, but rather rejecting the fundamental purpose of the pagan practices and transforming it into a sign of how the people are to live - faithful to God and to God's ways.

 

[Luce NDs]

Was off WC2 yesterday in deference to little things like having to have a sermon written for Sunday, so didn't have a chance to check in.

I should, I think, first clarify (if there's a misunderstanding) that I'm not arguing that the ancient Hebrew animal sacrifices arose in a vacuum. Obviously the surrounding cultures sacrificed animals and the Hebrews would have been aware of it. I should also point out that I have not said that "sacrifice was instituted by God," in Koehler's words. I did say that God "commanded" the sacrifices - in the sense of setting down the rules and rituals for how, when and by whom the sacrifices were to be made. Were sacrifices already happening? Of course they were. In the context of the narrative, they date back, as I noted, to the story of Cain and Abel, where God is said to have approved of animal sacrifice. Were the Hebrews continuing a "pre-Hebrew" practice? Absolutely.

I continue, however, to go back to the story of Israel's desire for a king. By the way, while I admire the preference for a link to Jesus' ministry (ie, his teaching on divorce) I continue to suggest for various reasons that the story in 1 Samuel is far more relevant to this particular discussion. Why? Primarily, because there's no specific reference in Jesus' teaching to the practices of the surrounding cultures on divorce. This was an example of a concession by God based on the hardness of the people's hearts as Jesus pointed out. There's no specific references to the surrounding culture - although I concede that it may be inferred. The 1 Samuel story on the other hand has a vigorous interplay between the people, Samuel and God, in which the people specifically ask to be like all the other nations - and God here again makes a concession. They can be like the other nations and have a king. They will be just like the other nations. There will be consequences, but they can live as the world lives so to speak.

There, for me, is the difference with the issue of animal sacrifice. God takes an existing practice and redefines it, as I suggested in an earlier post. The Hebrew understanding of the purpose of sacrifice becomes very different from the pagan understanding of the purpose of sacrifice. The pagans appease their gods with sacrifice, suggesting that the sacrifice itself is enough. For the Hebrews, engaging in the sacrifice isn't enough. Engaging in the sacrifice according to the rituals defined by God is merely a demonstration of faithfulness and obedience, and has to be matched by all other aspects of their life. More than just making sacrifices, God demands that the people be transformed; their lives reoriented according to a God who, in spite of the sacrifices, is not bloodthirsty but is rather compassionate and forgiving, and who expects those same qualities to be displayed by the people in return. Thus, the criticism by later prophets of the sacrificial system as it had evolved, where the sacrifices had become an end in themselves rather than a means to an end - the end being faithful and compassionate living in obedience to God.

We may, I believe, simply be dealing with semantics over the word "concession" on this issue, I suppose. You see this as a concession by God to pagan practices. I don't see it as a concession. A concession is God's response to "we want a king like all the other nations," and God allowing the people to have a king like all the other nations. Here, I see God not making a concession to allow the Hebrews to be like the surrounding nations, but rather rejecting the fundamental purpose of the pagan practices and transforming it into a sign of how the people are to live - faithful to God and to God's ways.

Does a concession of God allow space for thought ... imaginary area, or aria?

The song of God about ... we should have used this vacated spot (rapturous) for the love of intelligence and learning ... and know that we should not act intuitively like the cat and just put down the bird instinctually? It seems the powerfully wealthy just don't grasp this ... and God is still filtering out the parts and debris ... trying to make something of the Runes?

Like the occupy movement ... this can preoccupy folk-us ... a restrictive spot?