How the fuck do non-Marxist Christians reconcile capitalism with Christ's humanistic teachings?

How the fuck do non-Marxist Christians reconcile capitalism with Christ's humanistic teachings?

Other urls found in this thread:

w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

If anybody calls them out, they spam fedora memes and plug their ears.

this thread in five minutes:
>lol god doesn't exist
>fuck you man I bet you wear a funny looking hat
>i bet you wanna watch other people fuck while wearing a chastity belt

Yeah, but they do that with everything that contradicts their views.

Either that, or they deny that capitalism and traditional religions fundamentally don't have the same agenda

>Marx is the only alternative to capitalism ever
Read a book.

Is this bait?

Marxism is based on the theory of evolution, it is completely anti-Christian.

Communism is Atheism.

Holy fuck OP, that's a truckload of spooks you got there.

>Christ calls for charitable acts
>This means that forcible redistribution of other people's wealth and totalitarian atheistic societies is Christian

>who were Jan van Leiden and John Noyes

Literally madmen

Literally heretics.

>you don't go to heaven if you're rich

Forced charity is literally redistribution

The fuck does Christ have to do with Marxism? Did he want the workers to seize the means of production? Did he want a class war? Did he want to abolish hierarchy? Helping the poor doesn't make you a Marxist.

If you take helping the poor as a moral "ought" than yes Marxism and wealth redistribution would be a great Christian thing. There's actually a theology that capitalism is institutionalized sin.

Jesus doesn't want redistribution and Christianity is explicitly against revolutions. Rich fucks are gonna get rekt on judgment day, but until then people have to wait it out and never revolt against their kings and masters. It's basically anti-Marx.

Christianity, at least since the time of Constantine was always, always pro status quo. Marx's Son in law Paul Lafargue points out this hypocrisy.

The church was very pro aristocracy and monarchy pre french revolution and the bourgeoisie preached atheism to topple it. But when Bourgeoisie became the status quo they were very very very pro Bourgeois and later on pro capitalist.

Had Communist saw the abrahamic religions as useful like the capitalists and not bear hostilities from the start, the church have acted the same. But Communist were always hostile to the church from start, hence there was no reconcilliation.

So the real question one should as is not why Church is so anti marx but why church is so anti monarchy and anti aristocracy? Something they preached for literally 1700 years and why suddenly the "despicable anti monarch anti god bourgeoisie" became their sweethearts

If you havent noticed, christians don't live by Jesus's word anymore. They haven't since Christianity was syncretized with native European religion.

Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’

26 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28 “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

(From Matthew 25:14-30 - The Parable of the Bags of Gold)

It's actually more libertarians than Marxist. I mean you should give, but if you can't, then you just can't.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesars"

>20 fucking 16 and people still falling for the communist meme

You know what else the Bible says?! If you don't work, you don't eat. And Marx never worked a day in his life.

Not working for pay is not the same as not working.

>Jesus was a capitalist
>Jesus charged money for people to hear his sermons, his time was valuable
>Jesus copyrighted the gospels, the bible aint free you freeloading commie
>Jesus charged for healing
>the lords house is private property, stop panhandling your way in
>you gotta pay Jesus to save your from your capitalist greed sins

>Marx never worked a day in his life
Who started this meme?

Where did he work?

Yet everything Marx wrote about was precisely that.

>redistribution is charity
>revolution is pacifism
>hatred is love
>disbelief is faith
>obfuscation is truth

How can you reconcile being a Christian and a Marxist?

The bourgeoisie are going to hell anyway for their greed, so it is no crime to kill them all and let God sort them out.

And for bringing food to the hungry, shelter to the homeless and comfort to the afraid you are sure to go to heaven.

To revolt against the capitalist system that binds us is truly a holy act, just as Jesus revolted against the bourgeoisie in the temple.

christianity and capitalism don't go together, but neither do christianity and materialism

The part where Marx said religion was the opium of the masses, and socialist states purged religion for being the tools of the upper classes.

>How do Marxists
>How do Christians
It's fucking religion, man. They just make stuff up to justify whatever they wish.

When Marx said
>religion is the opiate of the masses
He didn't mean "hurr it's stupid" like a lot of people think. Back then opium was a perfectly normal thing especially to be used as a painkiller (it still is to an extent). This is why he also said
>Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.
He was saying that people had to turn to religion to allieviate the misery of life.

Because communism is government compulsion and violence while capitalism encourages small government and personal liberty.

Now what does any of that have to do with Jesus.

>And Marx never worked a day in his life.

This.

>The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

And some soviet satellite states still went full atheism.

I think I missed the part of the Bible where Jesus threatens to shoot anyone that doesn't give to charity

Shitposting isn't work.

Romans didn't have guns back then moran. He used a whip.

They did, but communist governments don't have to. Cuba is 65% Christian and no one cares.

By not coveting others wealth which is the very core tenet of Marxism?

The difference between Jesus and Marxist-Leninism is he fears the proliferation of violence. In that regard he has liberal tendencies and you could call him a run of the mill ultra-left anarchist but there are parts where he comes pretty close to being ML avant la lettre:

>If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

>Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Absolutely revolutionary.

Both capitalism and Marxism posit all problems and solutions purely in terms of distribution of material things. So they're both wrong.

How are social relations entirely material in the way Christians would mean the term? What's the relationship between social relations and spirit?

Marxism and Christianity are based on different epistemologies and so material in one sense doesn't necessarily map to material in the other, they're entirely incommensurable terms.

we should just give our things to the church.

>Solving the problem of distribution of material things with a solution to the distribution of material things means you're wrong

Worst post in the thread.

God doesn't exist so...

Thank you for your contribution.

Real life.

>you don't go to heaven if you're rich

jesus never said this

He literally said this.

He literally said people who donate there money is going to have a bad time.

Matthew 19:23-25

>Christ calls for charitable acts

It goes a bit further than making a donation to Caritas while sitting comfy in your wealthy estate, you know.

I don't think I can picture Jesus, if he were here, sipping tea in a rich mansion with richfags. Rather, in some 'hood hanging around with the poorfags and the outcasts of society.

>murikan ''''christians''''

How the hell do you reconcile Marx's and most communist's leader's utter disdain for religion? I've never seen a group of people (communists) shot on and hate religion so much and then wonder why more religious people weren't in their sphere

short answer: whether or not you can reconcile Christianity with capitalism, you most certainly cannot reconcile it with Marxism either.

Communism is literally Christianity though.

>Communism is literally Christianity though
>10th commandment is "don't covet other people's stuff"
>Communism is built from coveting other peoples stuff
???

>Communists
>hope to reform men by changing institutions and laws
>Christias
>wish to remake institutions, and lessen laws, by changing men.

Literally opposites, actually.

We don't. Usury is evil and ideally usurers should be killed on sight.

Since you brought up the topic about capitalism and Christianity.

Usury is the cornerstone of capitalism.

And usury is forbidden by both the new and old testament.

It was banned by the Catholic church for over 1000 years.

After the protestant reformation it magically became ok for some reason (no one has ever really explained that one to me).

To be fair the Orthodox church frowns heavily on usury moreso than their western counterparts and even has come up with their own banking system in Russia.

>Communism is literally Christianity
>Marx calls religion "opiate of the masses"
>Communism is inherently nihilistic, tells you to hate entire demographics of people
>Jesus says only through F A I T H and L O V I N G thy neighbor can you be saved
Ok dude
It's painfully clear you've never actually bothered to read either the bible or the communist manifesto
Just because Christianity isn't inherently pro-capitalist doesn't inherently make it nihilistic, hedonistic, anti-nationalistic, or violent, or anti-religious (aka Communism)

>After the protestant reformation it magically became ok for some reason (no one has ever really explained that one to me)
Jews. No really. When the Jewish diaspora came to Europe, they profited heavily from the fact they could commit usury through post-biblical rabbinic literature which meant they happily loaned money out to merchants, monarchs, etc. When Luther came to the fore and really became anti-semitic out of his inability to convert Jews (and proceeded to metaphorically remove schwarma from Europe), he needed to fill the niche of usury and thus it became okay in the protestant realm.

Ever heared of Calvin? You have to earn your place in Heaven with hard work. The more money you have, the better job you are doing.
I suggest you read Weber's 'Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism'

Yeah everyone knows Luther hated the Jews, but how does that make it ok to ignore the Bible when it comes to usury? What reasons did he give to say to ignore those texts?

Marx.

Also how could Calvin ignore:

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

Jesus said this according to Matthew? Did Calvin not read the Bible or something or what reason did he give for wealth equalizing success in the eyes of God?

Social relations, from a Christians perspective, *aren't* entirely material, that's the point.

This kind of thinking is exactly what isn't a good idea. The Pharisees wouldn't help their own parents because they said they already provided their quota of 10% charity, and it went to the Temple. In Crime and Punishment, the hardhearted, abusive moneylender leaves her whole fortune to the monasteries, without any care for the sister she exploits. It doesn't work like that.

Capitalism and Marxism aren't about just addressing material problems, they are about redirecting all efforts and concern to strictly material problems; in the case of the former, all other problems are problems insofar as they haven't been sublated by the market; in the latter case, all other problems are just "distractions" from class struggle. Marx, for instance, not only does not care about ensuring humility, he actively hates it because it might get in the way of the level of resentment he wants to instill to get his bloodbath rolling. In Christianity, poverty is glorified because it can foster humility, but if doesn't do that, then the poor are no better than the wealthy (Luke 14:34), and in fact the wealthy who have humility are better than the oppressed who are proud of being oppressed and not like the wicked oppressors (Luke 18: 9-14). Marx considers this sort of outlook as an attack on his system, because to him material distribution mustn't just be a problem, it must be the ONLY problem, and any concern which threatens the material concern as paramount is reactionary.

>What reasons did he give to say to ignore those texts?
He didn't, but that's when people started ignoring it due to the need to fill the niche that Jews held. Calvin took it a step further by reinterpreting the Bible passages that forbid usury and used other passages that set conditions for loans as proof.

Luther hated usury, you're thinking of Calvin who permitted it.

All this, by the way, does not change the fact the ideal economics of Christianity are those without private property, or ever personal property where another needs it. Saint John Chrysostom said that if you have a single coat that you don't regularly use, your ownership of that coat is theft from those who need it.

Calvin would tell you that if you work hard enough, you can get that camel to pass through.

Wouldn't it have been easier to give your wealth to the poor? If we measured wealth as the key metric on who is getting in to heaven then you might as well start stealing large sums of money from people using financial schemes.

Many did actually. IIRC Rockefeller or some rich fuck like that gave most of his wealth to the poor becasue he wanted to avoid hell.

For the most part, the Reformed tradition did not modify the medieval consensus on the doctrine of God. God's character is described primarily using three adjectives: eternal, infinite, and unchangeable.

Reformed theologians, along with other Protestants, believe salvation from punishment for sin to be given to all those who have faith in Christ. Faith is not purely intellectual, but involves trust in God's promise to save. Protestants do not hold there to be any other requirement for salvation, but that faith alone is sufficient.
Justification is the part of salvation where God pardons the sin of those who believe in Christ. It is historically held by Protestants to be the most important article of Christian faith, though more recently it is sometimes given less importance out of ecumenical concerns. People are not on their own able even to fully repent of their sin or prepare themselves to repent because of their sinfulness. Therefore, justification is held to arise solely from God's free and gracious act
He thought that sin so affects human nature that they are unable even to exercise faith in Christ by their own will. While people are said to retain will, in that they willfully sin, they are unable to not sin because of the corruption of their nature due to original sin. To remedy this, Reformed Christians believe that God predestined some people to be saved. This choice by God to save some is held to be unconditional and not based on any characteristic or action on the part of the person chosen. This view is opposed to the Arminian view that God's choice of whom to save is conditional or based on his foreknowledge of who would respond positively to God

So its ok to ignore parts of the Bible as long as you have faith in God who will save you in the end.

Oh well... I suppose if we can ignore the part about usury we can start killing people and take their wealth because God will forgive us in the end as long as we have faith in him.

Opiate of the masses isn't an insult, it's an accurate summary of the very nature of Christianity. It exists to help the suffering, just like opiates as painkillers.

Also communism isn't about hate, it's about community and compassion. The only people to hate are the bourgeoisie AKA sinners of the highest order.

Some of us Catholics STILL believe usury is a sin and Aquinas was right.

Indeed, regarding the broader subject of this thread, Christianity CAN'T be reconciled with capitalism. It can't be reconciled with any economic system. They are all fundamentally materialist, as Constantine says here Christians are called to live as though all men and women are Christ, as though we are all part of the mystical body of Christ. This means that whatever our sisters and brothers need, we are obligated to provide.

Not just usury, the idea of private property is also alien to Christianity. After all, everything in the world ultimately belongs to God, not man. As Christ says, if your sister or brother is in need of something, you must provide it for them. So following from that, if one of your fellow Christians is in unavoidable need of something you possess, it is not really yours any more. It belongs to them.

So no, capitalism can't be reconciled with Christianity. Rip it down.

So why not just be a communist?

Well there IS such a thing as Christian Marxism...

Depravity is the opiate of the masses.. Christianity is actually what tells them they must forgo it.

>Also communism isn't about hate
Maybe not innately, but it is for Marx

How?

>So why not just be a communist
Because communism is as equally materialistic as capitalism. It is quite literally predicated on coveting thy neighbor.

Have you read any of his polemics? Someone can't simply be wrong for him, they always have to be a punching bag.

But it isn't though. It's predicated on the abolition of private property.

And as you said private property is alien to Christianity.

Marx liked to pick fights with his contemporaries.

But that has more to do with his own self than his ideology.

I wasn't the guy you were originally applying to.

>It's predicated on the abolition of private property
Because the workers covet their neighbors wealth. The whole system is built on "that guy has more than me and that's not fair." Literally coveting thy neighbor.

You wouldn't be though.

It's not their wealth, it's God's wealth and by abolishing private property you're simply restoring the natural state of affairs before man started to claim parts of the Earth as his own.

>it's God's wealth
Not according to Marx, is it? Marxism and Christianity are incompatible at a fundamental level, even if they can share some aspects.

No because Marx was an atheist.

But practically what is the difference? In either case of it being God's property or there being no private property at all for all practical purposes they would be indistinguishable. One state of affairs just has a theistic motif to it.

>Marxism and Christianity are incompatible at a fundamental level,
Okay, why is that?

Not him, but Marxism is basically set to bring about equality and end injustice in the form of value alienation. Christianity essentially says that all of this shit DOES NOT MATTER as we're about to be judged and go to heaven soon.

Marx = material world is everything
Christ = material world is nothing

>But practically what is the difference?
One places the material wealth of the world in the hands of God and the spiritual wealth in the hands of men. The other places the material wealth in the hands of men and rejects spiritual wealth altogether. A communist is just as materialistic as the free market capitalist, even if you don't want to admit it.

>Okay, why is that
See above. Again, just because two things are cosmetically similar doesn't make them the same. Comparing biblical Christian theory to Marxism is like comparing Airbud and Old Yeller because they both had dogs in them.

No, Christianity is about redeeming the material world, not saying it's nothing. If the material world were nothing, obviously there would be no point for God to be made flesh. In Christianity, the material world is to be ordered according to the spiritual; each individual is responsible for his own body, the bishop for his flock, the king for society.

Because Christianity is neither capitalist, communist, or socialist. Read some the encyclicals

w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html

Capital isn't really incompatible with Christianity, but works like The German Ideology and the Origin of the Family obviously are.

It does matter though.

Christianity says that your salvation depends on your actions in the material world to alleviate others of their burdens caused by it. Communism is the ultimate realization of this - a world where everyone is housed, everyone is fed, and all property is held in common.

Christianity has everything to do with making the material world a better place.

"My kingdom is not of this world." It doesn't matter.

>Christianity says that your salvation depends on your actions

Completely wrong. The actions are the effect of salvation, not its cause.

>Completely wrong. The actions are the effect of salvation, not its cause.

So God wanted Hitler to kill the Jews?