Christian Economics

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Far be it from me to speak for all Christians, so please start here: Acts 2:42-47 & 4:32-37. Read. It.

That is sharing from the ground up, offered rather than enforced.

But. What does need to be civilly enforced is the regulation of white collar theft. A company should not be allowed to grow past a certain point if even one of its full time employees (required to be 80% of its workforce, say) is living in poverty (of basic human needs, including the ability to pursue Maslow’s hierarchy).

State ownership is NOT the answer. But if we’re going to be okay with socialized education, policing, justice, defense, and so forth, we need to stop talking about a market free of all of those things. We wouldn’t need to throw so much money into social programs if workers were paid fair wages and basic needs like shelter were not price gouged and supply of them intentionally kept scarce. We need a JUST market, or we need a just war, if the Lord wills.

How many chances do we keep getting to pull our heads out of our butts and treat every other and self as a self and other? The royal law of love is in Leviticus. The golden rule is all over the New Testament and is the sum of the law and the prophets. It is about time the real rational became actual in us, doncha think? Only one Way that’s gonna happen.

Who is the One from whom we withhold fair wages and affordable housing? He will set things right if we don’t.

State ownership, though, is NOT the way to reconcile. It is universal slavery.

“Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you–although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men." Paul, 1 Corinthians

Further study: christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

2

The holiest of True Christian economics is to give away your possessions to the poor and follow in Jesus’ footsteps. If that is opted out, then “give to Caesar what is Caesar” when it comes to paying taxes. Also its best not to be wealthy. That’s really it for Christian economics. Most Christians don’t like the New Testament economics and will opt to the Old Testament, when it suits them, such as the whole tithing thing.

But to discern what is actually Christian ought to be taken from the entirety of the Bible, however, Christians don’t follow the Bible, they follow misinformation on social media that they WANT to be true, or whatever it is their church/congregation has indoctrinated them with, or whatever it is they want themselves.

3

I blame ecmandu for how this is structured.

Re: John Rawls’ prioritizing of liberties, opportunities, and resources… which I learned in Political Philosophy at Modesto Junior College…

All solutions are variations of treat the other as self and self as other (equality/cooperation principle)… correspondence principle…

1.) consent violation: the assumption only equals can consent, and any differences constitute power imbalance and thus violation of consent

Solution: The greater/rich should redefine great/rich and be servant leaders/sharers. Size is irrelevant to consent… a large nation should respect the no … or the yes … of a small nation, and vice versa.

2.) the negative zero sum problem: the assumption that everyone should win

Solution: Work this out in conversation that tweaks terms until double standards are removed.

3.) the pleasurable exclusive access problem: the assumption that all resources should be shared (everyone should win) equally

Solution: Everyone who does their part should have their basic needs met. They should be free to choose what part that is within their abilities. No one should be able to take anything from them that would result in their basic needs not being met.

Some of my thoughts on arranged marriage are relevant:

facebook.com/10000369670299 … 544422579/

more: facebook.com/10000369670299 … 359125166/

4

WW_III_ANGRY wrote

Exactly.

5

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

https://biblehub.com/john/18-36.htm

Should Christians even participate in politics?

6

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205%3A38-40&version=NIV

Here it sounds like Jesus is advocating an extreme form of pacifism making Christianity incompatible with the enforcement of anything or self-defense.

7

WWIII Angry & Shieldmaiden… you speak of “etirety of the Bible” - I gave you the sum of the Law and the Prophets. Do you feel it was misapplied?

Gloominary - A) It is one thing to be a pacifist about how others treat you, but another to be a pacifist about how they treat those whom you are responsible to protect. B) Since the golden rule is not exclusive to Christians or Jews (it’s the royal law of love in Leviticus) but is in common between all humans transculturally, I fail to see the relevancy of your question regarding Christians participating in politics. All humans can participate in politics that are transcultural. It’s when politics stop being transcultural that Christians (or others) start getting excluded or marginalized. That’s when we start carving the Ichthus symbol in the dirt… <><

Granted Christians have a bad reputation of exclusivity. I prefer to scrap the bad examples from all worldviews and focus on the transcultural when it comes to ethics/politics/economics.

8

So if someone assaults you or your property, you ought to acquiesce, but if someone assaults another or their property, you ought to defend them and theirs?

And part of the golden rule is to not resist those sinning against you, as Jesus did not resist those sinning against him.
‘Judge not lest ye be judged’.
All politics is judgement, so Christianity is incompatible with politics.

I completely disagree with your assessment of Christianity.
Ethically Jesus advocated an extreme form of altruism, asceticism and pacifism.
Politically and economically he advocated total indifference to politics (to just not resist government), communism and voluntary poverty.

9

We can defend self and property, but not with a view of retaliation/revenge. We need to keep The Point in view. There are a million other ways to consider responding before resorting to violence. And people always matter more than things.

Jesus got himself violently killed because he was confronting the leadership and did not back down. Reassess.

10

Jesus was not an ascetic
biblehub.com/matthew/11-19.htm

11

The verse about not judging is commonly misinterpreted. It means that the same measure you use will be used against you, so make sure you’re not being a hypocrite, and remember what it means when he says he desires mercy and not a sacrifice.

12

He was confronting religious leaders for their false righteousness and hypocrisy, not government.

13

But since all men sin equally, according to Jesus, to the point of not being able to redeem themselves, no one has the right to judge, but God, and he chose to forgive all, so the Christian is to forgive all in turn, completely.

14

They were given authority to govern over the Jews by the Romans. He dissed Caesar when he said he wasn’t God in your quote above (the render bit). He did not deny being a king. And so forth. Granted… two worlds in play, overlapping… with different… well… governance. Also note passages regarding God allowing those in authority to be so. But totally different systems. Different purposes. Teaching tools.

Re: forgiveness… yes. Letting folks slay all day? No.

15

That’s true, allegedly he was moderate in food and drink.

16

And no, folks do not all sin equally. But they do all sin.

17

But what about in sex?

18

His first miracle was to turn water into wine that was better than the wine they were already drunk on. But yes I think he did do everything in moderation probably. Until extreme measures were required, like turning over tables in the temple.

19

In sex he was suppose to have been abstinent.

20

Was it Paul who said, it’s better not to marry?