Christ as a capitalist

[Simple Minded]

No. I am an M.Div graduate of one of the most conservative Evangelical seminaries in the U.S. and have studied scripture extensively in the original languages. It is not a matter of faith. Jesus never endorsed free enterprise or capitalism, and that is a plain and indisputable fact.

That is where the very concept of faith itself becomes interesting. Shirley, religious scholars have been arguing among themselves for centuries, just as Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc have been arguing among themselves. Have all the famous scholars or your faculty advisors agreed with your interpretation? And if they did not, did you/would you jettison your own interpretations on the basis of their "higher credentials?"

What if Fred next door get a different interpretation from his pastor, from his own readings of the NT, from the Pope, from his decades of experience in dealing with his fellow man, or from the one who answers his prayers? Which of the six should he accept as the highest authority? And when he created the hierarchy of authority, would that not be an act of faith?

I'm not trying to be a wiseass, and I have no reason to doubt the credentials you claim. In fact, I accept your greater scholarship on this matter...... as an act of faith....... on my part.

The very act of overriding down one's own perceptions, experience, common sense, or intelligence, as an act of faith that the "higher authority" is correct has always been a very questionable act to me.

Self-delusion, intimidation, the desire for peer acceptance, genuine epiphanies, or simply the abandonment of one's own sense of responsibility all become possible incentives.

Taking it out of the realm of religion, a modern example would be the belief in man made global warming.

Interesting stuff.

[Nonc Hilaire]

No. I am an M.Div graduate of one of the most conservative Evangelical seminaries in the U.S. and have studied scripture extensively in the original languages. It is not a matter of faith. Jesus never endorsed free enterprise or capitalism, and that is a plain and indisputable fact.

That is where the very concept of faith itself becomes interesting. Shirley, religious scholars have been arguing among themselves for centuries, just as Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc have been arguing among themselves. Have all the famous scholars or your faculty advisors agreed with your interpretation? And if they did not, did you/would you jettison your own interpretations on the basis of their "higher credentials?"

What if Fred next door get a different interpretation from his pastor, from his own readings of the NT, from the Pope, from his decades of experience in dealing with his fellow man, or from the one who answers his prayers? Which of the six should he accept as the highest authority? And when he created the hierarchy of authority, would that not be an act of faith?

I'm not trying to be a wiseass, and I have no reason to doubt the credentials you claim. In fact, I accept your greater scholarship on this matter...... as an act of faith....... on my part.

The very act of overriding down one's own perceptions, experience, common sense, or intelligence, as an act of faith that the "higher authority" is correct has always been a very questionable act to me.

Self-delusion, intimidation, the desire for peer acceptance, genuine epiphanies, or simply the abandonment of one's own sense of responsibility all become possible incentives.

Taking it out of the realm of religion, a modern example would be the belief in man made global warming.

Interesting stuff.

What is written in scripture isn't a matter of faith. It is a factual presence of letters on a page. The fact that there is no record of Jesus teaching capitalism, free enterprise or even self-sufficiency is not even a matter of interpretation. There just is no factual support for the idea.

Christians are generally free to follow their conscience when it comes to economic ideology. I prefer capitalism, but can state definitively that Jesus did not say a word recommending it in Scripture. I can't even think of a single proof-text which could be taken out of context to support that conclusion.

Really, capitalism didn't even exist then. The economy was primarily barter and private property was held under control of the emperor. I'm not an expert in ancient history, but even talking about capitalism in that period seems problematic.

[Simple Minded]

What is written in scripture isn't a matter of faith. It is a factual presence of letters on a page. The fact that there is no record of Jesus teaching capitalism, free enterprise or even self-sufficiency is not even a matter of interpretation. There just is no factual support for the idea.

Christians are generally free to follow their conscience when it comes to economic ideology. I prefer capitalism, but can state definitively that Jesus did not say a word recommending it in Scripture. I can't even think of a single proof-text which could be taken out of context to support that conclusion.

Really, capitalism didn't even exist then. The economy was primarily barter and private property was held under control of the emperor. I'm not an expert in ancient history, but even talking about capitalism in that period seems problematic.

That was another one of my thoughts, a discussion of Jesus endorsing capitalism or Marxism is probably about as meaningful as which computer operating system Jesus would endorse.

Between rationalization, imagination, projection, and preferring our personal foci and interpretations to reality, it is amazing humans get along as well as they do.

The very concept of conformity is problematic.

now back to scholarly topics... in your opinion, which one of the guys on Duck Dynasty is most Christ-like?

[Demon of Undoing]

Well, no they have. NH in this thread and many others throughout history here. Try to keep up.

No, he didn't, NH said it was important to avoid materialism, ie relying on your own money and power and other worldly things instead of trusting God. Not sure if you're lying or simply incapable of seeing the truth. The latter would explain much, I admit.

Read NH's sig and get back to me.

That verse is clearly about having mercy on a brother ( actually, castigating those that do and do not help, a withholding of mercy), not enjoining believers to have enough cash on hand to help everybody. That would be impossible. Were that the prime agency of mercy, the NT would be one big compendium of business tips from God guaranteed to make you money. You may think that's what it already is, but you'd be pretty far off. Creflo Dollar wouldn't happen to be your favorite preacher, would he?

Enki wrote:I disagree that it's irrelevant. I think his point was to equalize the wealth so that the entire community could benefit. I don't think it was irrelevant at all.

You can't equalize the wealth. It's impossible. If it's about either making money to make everybody rich or equalizing wealth, then God is nowhere in the equation. It's about selfless giving of what you have, regardless of amount. The widow's pennies deal specifically with this. Were the numbers important, she would have been the least of these.

He was trying to teach people to be the agents of God's providence.

This was already established in Jewish custom, so well that it was abused as fuel for self-righteousness by the Pharisees ( ahem). It was this assumption, by itself materialistic and denying God, that he was working to show was not enough.

Being wealthy is only good insofar as you act as the agent of God's providence.

No argument. This is different, however, than further asserting that we must all be raging capitalists to be the best servant of God possible, as P has essentially done.

It's interesting that secular leftists would point to Jesus' teaching about not caring for the things of this world as a virtue, it is in direct conflict with their belief in living for the moment and not for an afterlife that is never coming. This is usually one of their chief points of derision.

Maybe you should stick to misunderstanding one set of values at a time, you're confusing yourself unnecessarily.

[Typhoon]

The misapplication of current systems of belief to ancient texts, such as capitalism to the New Testament, is not uncommon.

It's been done for feminism, marxism, capitalism, postmodernism, and others.

All are transparent, naive, and somewhat desperate attempts to rationalize and justify these current belief systems.

[Simple Minded]

The misapplication of current systems of belief to ancient texts, such as capitalism to the New Testament, is not uncommon.

It's been done for feminism, marxism, capitalism, postmodernism, and others.

All are transparent, naive, and somewhat desperate attempts to rationalize and justify these current belief systems.

well said.

What does it say about modern man, that we often desire the approval of our ancestors who had no knowledge of our future existence?

Or the opposite, that modern man can feel pride or guilt in behavior that our ancestors engaged in decades or centuries before our birth?

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Jesus did not talk about helping people out of poverty. His emphasis was on selfless giving, rejecting materialism & security, and relying on God rather than self. He directly stated the poor will be with us always; giving was never about ameliorating poverty.

Remember the apostles were successful businessmen, and Jesus demanded they abandon their businesses and go forth barefoot to preach the gospel without accepting anything except the day's food and shelter. The emphasis was not on helping the poor, but on self-denial and eliminating self-reliance.

The need to eliminate self-reliance and to depend entirely upon God was a clear objective throughout the OT & NT. Personally, I fail at this but I am trying to improve.

"Prosperity Gospel," and any kind of Bourgeois Jesus just doesn't fly. You can easily read all four gospels in one sitting, and once you do you can't seriously reach any other conclusion than the one you've written above. So I'm not sure who these people think they are fooling: themselves or God. Dicey proposition either way.

Yet the Bible certainly teaches virtues like fortitude, temperance, constancy, and perseverance (among others) that when applied to one's life, generally, provide those bourgeoisie/"prosperity gospel" values you cannot fathom being in the text. It's a very dangerous thing to turn the evangelical counsels and emphases into factioning precepts.

Mr.P, this thread is the flip side of the stupid coin of the "Jesus was a socialist/rape is a-okay" ones that Enki made a while (a year?) ago. I mean really, did you become brain addled overnight here? Of course you look at those you disagree with as mentally ill, you are the type of guy who'd be scandalized by the 'oddity' of most saints. (To paraphrase Knox:) You've "a religion without enthusiasm in the old sense, calculated to reinforce morality, chivalry, and the sense of truth, providing comfort in times of distress and the glow of contentment in declining years. Supernatural in its nominal doctrines, yet, on the whole, rationalistic in its mode of approaching God."

Ultimately, its a religion of convenience. And it's something you, not anyone else, will have to answer to God many many many years from now.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

the aristocrats didnt complain about the system that supported them, they felt entitled to it by right of birth.

They didn't "feel" entitled. They were entitled. That's what made them aristocrats. The division of labor between estates doesn't become imaginary because revolution and industrialization overturned the old order. The peasants held their own entitlements too, even if they were much more readily violable and inequal.

the modern middle class westerner feels entitled to it and then adds a new layer of amusing self flagellation about it, they feel guilty but cant quite put their fingers on it.

for aslong as they come up with solutions that require someone elses effort or money then i will be sarcastic about those alleged good intentions, not because im some kind of saint but because im aware of how little our society (including me) actually operates on those communal village levels that they seem to crave but couldnt *lower* themselves to create.

another tax will fix it, maybe a wage rise, doesnt bother me, another tax will fix the consequences of that.

As Rosseau pointed out, in order for the people to be truly sovereign, they must forgo attempting to fix all their problems with money. We have a middle class which refuses to admit the political dimensions of their economy, and how it freezes out anyone outside of their political class. So they throw good money after bad trying to avoid the issues of their own sovereignty. But It isn't guilt that is fueling the whole thing, it is shame- which makes it much more pernicious in my eyes.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Can someone just answer me why if money is bad Jesus wants the poor people to have it. I've asked that question for years here and nobody even attempts an answer. Why is that. What is there to be afraid of.

Because no one is saying money is bad; only that there isn't an eternal financial system that is universally applicable for all times and peoples. Property laws, finances, are social creations subject to the society one is living in where the common good qualifies property. St Ambrose informs us that when we are giving to the poor we are “not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his.. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich”

This paper: Distributive Justice Before the Eighteenth Century: The Right of Necessity may interest some of you out there.

[noddy]

the aristocrats didnt complain about the system that supported them, they felt entitled to it by right of birth.

They didn't "feel" entitled. They were entitled. That's what made them aristocrats. The division of labor between estates doesn't become imaginary because revolution and industrialization overturned the old order. The peasants held their own entitlements too, even if they were much more readily violable and inequal.

the modern middle class westerner feels entitled to it and then adds a new layer of amusing self flagellation about it, they feel guilty but cant quite put their fingers on it.

for aslong as they come up with solutions that require someone elses effort or money then i will be sarcastic about those alleged good intentions, not because im some kind of saint but because im aware of how little our society (including me) actually operates on those communal village levels that they seem to crave but couldnt *lower* themselves to create.

another tax will fix it, maybe a wage rise, doesnt bother me, another tax will fix the consequences of that.

As Rosseau pointed out, in order for the people to be truly sovereign, they must forgo attempting to fix all their problems with money. We have a middle class which refuses to admit the political dimensions of their economy, and how it freezes out anyone outside of their political class. So they throw good money after bad trying to avoid the issues of their own sovereignty. But It isn't guilt that is fueling the whole thing, it is shame- which makes it much more pernicious in my eyes.

which brings us back to my dubious understanding of christ, which is that he was big on doing the right thing and against symbols and laws that you hide behind to avoid doing it.

[Mr. Perfect]

Not quite. Mr. P has failed to find a single instance of Jesus preaching capitalism.

The issue is did Jesus commend capitalism, not that He forbade it.

Jesus followed Hebrew law. Historically, the Hebrews did not allow unregulated free enterprise, much less capitalism.

Nowhere in canonical or non-canonical literature does Jesus recommend personal financial self-sufficiency, much less capitalism.

I cannot pretend that Jesus endorsed it.

I reduced your comments for brevity only.

Couple of points.

1) When the Hebrew Law grew to include "Thou shalt not steal" private property rights were introduced the Israelite theology.

2) Private property plus trade is getting very close to full capitalism. Both existed throughout Israelite history.

3) I believe that people did not have names for economic systems at that time in the way we do now. So of course Jesus could not have endorsed capitalism any more than he could have endorsed basketball. However that does not mean that we cannot use the revelation to determine the compatibility of capitalism or basketball to the scripture.

Just look at the original quotes from Bono. How could Christ disagree with that. I don't like El Bono despite having been a former huge fan of his band but really who can argue that he doesn't have some extreme firsthand experience in addition to my own economic study and observation. It's hard to ignore those data sets.

Jesus did make the plight of the poor a big issue, not me. I don't see a way around coupling what Bono said with the gospel, ultimately. Poverty is a horror that should be alleviated, capitalism is the best tool to do that.

[Mr. Perfect]

The misapplication of current systems of belief to ancient texts, such as capitalism to the New Testament, is not uncommon.

It's been done for feminism, marxism, capitalism, postmodernism, and others.

All are transparent, naive, and somewhat desperate attempts to rationalize and justify these current belief systems.

Let me guess waitforit "a pox on all their houses".

[Mr. Perfect]

No, he didn't, NH said it was important to avoid materialism, ie relying on your own money and power and other worldly things instead of trusting God. Not sure if you're lying or simply incapable of seeing the truth. The latter would explain much, I admit.

No, he said one would only rely on God alone for their next meal, why would that be if money was ok.

Work on your reading comprehension before accusing people of lying.

That verse is clearly about having mercy on a brother ( actually, castigating those that do and do not help, a withholding of mercy), not enjoining believers to have enough cash on hand to help everybody. That would be impossible. Were that the prime agency of mercy, the NT would be one big compendium of business tips from God guaranteed to make you money. You may think that's what it already is, but you'd be pretty far off. Creflo Dollar wouldn't happen to be your favorite preacher, would he?

But none of this answers the issue you raised, which is the giving was not about the poor. It is certainly about the poor even if it is also about the giver. It simply is about the poor as well, despite what you said.

No argument. This is different, however, than further asserting that we must all be raging capitalists to be the best servant of God possible, as P has essentially done.

What is this "raging capitalist" as opposed to a non raging capitalist. I think they call this hyperbole, a desperation tactic. Do you want sedate capitalism? FIne, let's do sedate capitalism.

What I have essentially done is pointed out with the help of Bono of all people that if you want to help the poor capitalism is the best answer. Just read what he said, he's a leftie and he came to that conclusion all on his own. 2 + 2= 4

Do you have something against the poor? Do you like them being in poverty? Do you have a plan for it, or any ideas to speak of.

Maybe you should stick to misunderstanding one set of values at a time, you're confusing yourself unnecessarily.

Any secular leftist will tell you your thoughts of an afterlife are a ridiculous joke and laugh in your face for denying yourself anything here in the hope of some benefit after you're dead. Just ask them, they'll tell you. I've never found it confusing.

[Mr. Perfect]

Because no one is saying money is bad;

Boy. They sure do.

only that there isn't an eternal financial system that is universally applicable for all times and peoples.

There is one that works really well right now. I live in reality more than abstracts, so until something better comes along we go full capitalist. Raging or sedate both work fine for me. Whatever adjective makes people emotionally calm.

Property laws, finances, are social creations subject to the society one is living in where the common good qualifies property.

Thou shalt not steal. Private property.

St Ambrose informs us that when we are giving to the poor we are “not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his.. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich”

Capitalism is not about the rich. The rich are found in every system. We have left wing Keynesianism now and it produced record rich. This is an enormous Freudian error that will blow up in so many faces. I couldn't care less about St Ambrose.

[Mr. Perfect]

As Rosseau pointed out, in order for the people to be truly sovereign, they must forgo attempting to fix all their problems with money.

Money fixes the problesm that come from a lack of money, and nothing else has been shown to work as a substitute, barring materialistic miracles. If you can get that, more power to you, literally.

We have a middle class which refuses to admit the political dimensions of their economy, and how it freezes out anyone outside of their political class. So they throw good money after bad trying to avoid the issues of their own sovereignty. But It isn't guilt that is fueling the whole thing, it is shame- which makes it much more pernicious in my eyes.

It's just stupidity and denial. You can't get a man on the street to explain national finances and policy to save their lives. It's hard to tell if the most decorated experts in the field comprehend it.

[Mr. Perfect]

The misapplication of current systems of belief to ancient texts, such as capitalism to the New Testament, is not uncommon.

It's been done for feminism, marxism, capitalism, postmodernism, and others.

All are transparent, naive, and somewhat desperate attempts to rationalize and justify these current belief systems.

well said.

What does it say about modern man, that we often desire the approval of our ancestors who had no knowledge of our future existence?

Or the opposite, that modern man can feel pride or guilt in behavior that our ancestors engaged in decades or centuries before our birth?

It;s not about our ancestors and what they thought. It is about God, and what he thinks.

[Mr. Perfect]

That was another one of my thoughts, a discussion of Jesus endorsing capitalism or Marxism is probably about as meaningful as which computer operating system Jesus would endorse.

Exactly. The Jesus you all believe in cannot live in modernity, mine can. Mine is a living breathing Jesus that applies to modern times. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to address that part of it.

Between rationalization, imagination, projection, and preferring our personal foci and interpretations to reality, it is amazing humans get along as well as they do.

The very concept of conformity is problematic.

now back to scholarly topics... in your opinion, which one of the guys on Duck Dynasty is most Christ-like?

I think Jesus' views on the poor and what we should do for them are far clearer and easier to discern.

[Mr. Perfect]

Mr.P, this thread is the flip side of the stupid coin of the "Jesus was a socialist/rape is a-okay" ones that Enki made a while (a year?) ago. I mean really, did you become brain addled overnight here? Of course you look at those you disagree with as mentally ill, you are the type of guy who'd be scandalized by the 'oddity' of most saints.

I personally don't think that trying to feed hungry people is stupid. When one looks at the ways to do that Capitalism shoots right to the top.

I just want to feed hungry people Nap. Bono says capitalism is the best way, and he has no ulterior motive in saying that, being a leftist. Do you have a better way? Do you have any knowledge of hunger, starvation, deprivation. Did Jesus like that stuff or did he not like it. What ways do you promote to address these issues. Are you getting any ideas from Ambrosia of the Roseyrosey guy.

Let's hear some real world ideas. Let me know if you have any.

(To paraphrase Knox:) You've "a religion without enthusiasm in the old sense, calculated to reinforce morality, chivalry, and the sense of truth, providing comfort in times of distress and the glow of contentment in declining years. Supernatural in its nominal doctrines, yet, on the whole, rationalistic in its mode of approaching God."

You're way into the navel here bro. I just want to fill empty bellies.

[Endovelico]

A Leprechaun told me yesterday that capitalism is evil... It put me to thinking...

[Nonc Hilaire]

Not quite. Mr. P has failed to find a single instance of Jesus preaching capitalism.

The issue is did Jesus commend capitalism, not that He forbade it.

Jesus followed Hebrew law. Historically, the Hebrews did not allow unregulated free enterprise, much less capitalism.

Nowhere in canonical or non-canonical literature does Jesus recommend personal financial self-sufficiency, much less capitalism.

I cannot pretend that Jesus endorsed it.

I reduced your comments for brevity only.

Couple of points.

1) When the Hebrew Law grew to include "Thou shalt not steal" private property rights were introduced the Israelite theology.

2) Private property plus trade is getting very close to full capitalism. Both existed throughout Israelite history.

3) I believe that people did not have names for economic systems at that time in the way we do now. So of course Jesus could not have endorsed capitalism any more than he could have endorsed basketball. However that does not mean that we cannot use the revelation to determine the compatibility of capitalism or basketball to the scripture.

Just look at the original quotes from Bono. How could Christ disagree with that. I don't like El Bono despite having been a former huge fan of his band but really who can argue that he doesn't have some extreme firsthand experience in addition to my own economic study and observation. It's hard to ignore those data sets.

Jesus did make the plight of the poor a big issue, not me. I don't see a way around coupling what Bono said with the gospel, ultimately. Poverty is a horror that should be alleviated, capitalism is the best tool to do that.

Read Leviticus 25.

Lev. 25:23 ¶ “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me.

Lev. 25:34 But the fields of pastureland belonging to their cities may not be sold, for that is their possession forever.
Lev. 25:35 ¶ “If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you.
Lev. 25:36 Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you.
Lev. 25:37 You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit.

This is not ownership or capitalism as we understand it. Real property may not be sold, but only rented. Interest and profit were allowed for international trade, but not within the nation.

[Typhoon]

The misapplication of current systems of belief to ancient texts, such as capitalism to the New Testament, is not uncommon.

It's been done for feminism, marxism, capitalism, postmodernism, and others.

All are transparent, naive, and somewhat desperate attempts to rationalize and justify these current belief systems.

Let me guess waitforit "a pox on all their houses".

A pox on all the insecure extremists that believe it necessary to try and force their system of belief on others.

Speaking of the quoting the christian bible and property rights, a classic:

Why can't I own a Canadian?

[monster_gardener]

I disagree that it's irrelevant. I think his point was to equalize the wealth so that the entire community could benefit. I don't think it was irrelevant at all.

Bingo, a first step.

He was trying to teach people to be the agents of God's providence.

Very, very good.

Being wealthy is only good insofar as you act as the agent of God's providence.

You're killing it dude. Well done.

That seems to me to be the entire point, that we are all one with God and when we realize that we will all be wealthy beyond measure. Until we realize it, well, we all suffer.

A++. +1000.

Congrats to Mr. P & Tinker!!!

Me thinketh that those who insist on labeling themselves and others often build both camaraderie and animosity in their minds that far exceeds anything actually existing in reality. Infinite friends or foes..... and long before Facebook even existed. What's not to like (pun intended)?

Imagination abhors a vacuum of knowledge! One gets to live in a Heaven or a Hell of one's own creation. How could life be any more just?

ding ding, now back to round 27,457,879,921,127 of what is a true capitalist, Christian, right-winger, or left- winger!

in this corner wearing blue and red polka dotted trunks......obviously well informed..... and weighing with a triple digit IQ we have............

Not quite. Mr. P has failed to find a single instance of Jesus preaching capitalism. He prefers to Vaseline himself like a long distance swimmer so that he can try to fit through the eye of that needle.

The issue is did Jesus commend capitalism, not that He forbade it.

Joseph had funds sufficient for an inn to house Mary during the birth of Jesus, but those funds were of no avail. This observation is relevant for believers at this time of year. Excuse my interjecting doctrine here, but timeliness demands it and I do not expect everyone to accept that Jesus' choice to be born into poverty is meaningful but hopefully it will help explain part of the meaning of Christmas.

Jesus followed Hebrew law. Historically, the Hebrews did not allow unregulated free enterprise, much less capitalism. The only acceptable sacrifice was of perfect animals - breeding stock most valuable in the capitalist sense. Interest on loans was forbidden except to enemies, and all lands were to revert to the hereditary owners every seven years regardless of mortgage satisfied or not.

Hebrew law demanded crops not be fully harvested in order to provide free food for the poor. Households were required to provide free hospitality to sojourners.

Nowhere in canonical or non-canonical literature does Jesus recommend personal financial self-sufficiency, much less capitalism.

Personally, I am in favor of capitalism but I cannot pretend that Jesus endorsed it.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Nonc.

Personally, I am in favor of capitalism but I cannot pretend that Jesus endorsed it.

Maybe....

But I'm not so sure....

In the Parable(s) of the Talents/Minas, Jesus seems to endorse something like it and even advises patronizing the Killer Klowns From Financial Space of the FIRE economy , the Banksters oops I mean Bankers

25 “Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish, and five were prudent. 3 For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, 4 but the prudent took oil in flasks along with their lamps. 5 Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep. 6 But at midnight there was a shout, ‘Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.’ 7 Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish said to the prudent, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ 9 But the prudent answered, ‘No, there will not be enough for us and you too; go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.’ 10 And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut. 11 Later the other virgins also came, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open up for us.’ 12 But he answered, ‘Truly I say to you, I do not know you.’ 13 Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour.

Parable of the Talents

14 “For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them. 15 To one he gave five [a]talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey. 16 Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents. 17 In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more. 18 But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

19 “Now after a long time the master of those slaves *came and *settled accounts with them. 20 The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, ‘Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.’ 21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your [c]master.’

22 “Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, ‘Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’

24 “And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. 25 And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’

26 “But his master answered and said to him, ‘You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed. 27 Then you ought to have put my money [d]in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest. 28 Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.’

29 “For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. 30 Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... rsion=NASB

Scary stuff..... Better to Bank with a FIRE Klown Bankster that Be Blown to Hell Fire....

Also....

The Parable of the Ten Minas

11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’

14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

15 “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’

17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’

18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’

19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’

20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’

22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’

24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’

25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’

26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

And Wiki lists a third non-canonical version

Version in the Gospel of the Hebrews

Eusebius of Caesarea includes a paraphrased summary of a parable of talents taken from a "Gospel written in Hebrew script" (generally considered in modern times to be the Gospel of the Nazarenes); this gospel was presumably destroyed in the destruction of the Theological Library of Caesarea Maritima in the 7th century and has yet to be found. In that gospel, Eusebius writes that while the man who had hid the talent was rebuked for his burial, only the man who had received two talents had invested and gained a return on his investment. The recipient of the five talents instead "wasted his master’s possessions with harlots and flute-girls;" it was he, in the Hebrew gospel, that was sent into the darkness (Eusebius expressly identifies the darkness as being imprisonment).[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of ... s_or_minas

[Mr. Perfect]

The misapplication of current systems of belief to ancient texts, such as capitalism to the New Testament, is not uncommon.

It's been done for feminism, marxism, capitalism, postmodernism, and others.

All are transparent, naive, and somewhat desperate attempts to rationalize and justify these current belief systems.

Let me guess waitforit "a pox on all their houses".

A pox on all the insecure extremists that believe it necessary to try and force their system of belief on others.

In what way is Christianity or Capitalism extreme. How can the above possibly be relevant to anything being discussed.

Speaking of the quoting the christian bible and property rights, a classic:

Why can't I own a Canadian?

A classic in biblical ignorance.

[Mr. Perfect]

Read Leviticus 25.

Lev. 25:23 ¶ “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me.

Lev. 25:34 But the fields of pastureland belonging to their cities may not be sold, for that is their possession forever.
Lev. 25:35 ¶ “If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you.
Lev. 25:36 Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you.
Lev. 25:37 You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit.

This is not ownership or capitalism as we understand it. Real property may not be sold, but only rented. Interest and profit were allowed for international trade, but not within the nation.

You are correct, this does not relate to ownership or capitalism as we understand it, because the legal assumption is that all the property of Israel belongs to God. We do not operate under that legal assumption any more so of course it does not apply in the way you are trying to apply it. Also we should ask if Leviticus was fulfilled by Christ or not.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Read Leviticus 25.

Lev. 25:23 ¶ “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me.

Lev. 25:34 But the fields of pastureland belonging to their cities may not be sold, for that is their possession forever.
Lev. 25:35 ¶ “If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you.
Lev. 25:36 Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you.
Lev. 25:37 You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit.

This is not ownership or capitalism as we understand it. Real property may not be sold, but only rented. Interest and
profit were allowed for international trade, but not within the nation.

You are correct, this does not relate to ownership or capitalism as we understand it, because the legal assumption is that all the property of Israel belongs to God. We do not operate under that legal assumption any more so of course it does not apply in the way you are trying to apply it. Also we should ask if Leviticus was fulfilled by Christ or not.

Agreed. I posted it in response to your argument that the commandment to not steal implied ownership in the modern sense, and wanted to point out that ownership was a different concept.

I should add there is a tenth commandment to not desire what your neighbor has. The denial of aspirations is relevant as well.