Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    	A good question, Mike. I have some difficulty with the two. They
    certainly are not mutually exclusive yet it would seem that if you are
    really very good with one then you may have some problem being really
    very good with the other. But this is at the very extremes. You could,
    of course, be really very BAD at both simultaneously with no effort at
    all, but why bother.

    
    I think they go hand in hand (not that Christianity couldn't co-exist
    with many other brands of "government").
    
    Read C.G.Jung's "The Undiscovered Self" - it's a short book and to the
    point.
    
    guy

    Re: Basenote
    
    I think there is a proverb in the Book of Proverbs, that says something
    about "buying and selling" and the sin that is near by.  I don't think
    Capitalism and Christianity go together.
    
    The economic system support in the Bible, for Christians, is a
    "Communist/Socialist" type of arrangement.  Where all share equally,
    "no one has too much and no one has too little, but all have enough". 
    By nature of "capitalism" one is prompted to compete with others and to
    seek a personal gain, hence selfishness which often leads to greed.
    
    In the book of Acts, is described the communal-cooperative type
    economic situation for Christians.  NO.  Capitalism is definitely not
    the Christian way!

    
>    I think there is a proverb in the Book of Proverbs, that says something
>   about "buying and selling" and the sin that is near by.

	I think not. On the other hand I found Prov. 11:26 

	"He that withholdeth corn, the people shall curse him: but 
	blessing shall be upon the head of him that selleth it."

	Every reference to buy or sell I found in Proverbs had a good
	associated with it.

			Alfred


	

    
    No form of economy or government will work unless submitted to the
    Lordship of Christ. When submitted to the Lordship of Christ, the
    surface model is irrelevent.
    
    Jamey

    
    Re.5
    
         Interesting statement. What does it mean ? How is a form of
    government or economic system "submitted to the Lordship of Christ"?
         Also how can successful governments and economies be explained
    in non-Christian nations in the past or the present ?
    
                                                       Mike

    
    	I don't think Capitalism and Christianity is mutually exclusive 
    either.  However Capitalism subjected to Christian principals would
    be very different to what most of us are used to.
    
    	Imagine a capitalism where there is no debt?

Yes.

and yes.

Although I agree with Jamey.  The real issue in my mind is whether or
not the people or striving for God.

If you end up asking what is the "most" "Christian" form of government,
I'd have to say a theocracy.  Just wait a few years.  We'll have one.  :-)

Collis

    re .6
    
    Mike,
    
    I simply mean that the government, as an expression of the hearts of
    its members and the people it represents are solely committed to
    serving Jesus Christ. This is reflected in laws, individual
    declarations of faith by all leaders, all for the purpose of serving
    Christ and the one who sent him. 
    
    I am not aware of any successful governments or economies. Has any
    lasted forever? A theocracy, indeed is the only form of successful
    government. So far this has been a voluntary system.
    
    Jamey

    RE: 6
    
    A form of government or economic system is "submitted" to the Lordship
    of Christ, when the principles and standards of Christ are used
    fundamentally to guide the affairs of said state and economy.
    
    The question we are discussing, IMO, is not "successful governments and
    economies" but "applying religious principles, specifically the
    Christian faith, to government and economy".  Non-christian, does not
    necessarily mean non-Word of God, Christianity is not the only Word of
    God available.  Islamic nations, through the teachings of the Koran,
    are non-christian, but they apply the Word of God to their government
    and economic affairs.  
    
    Further, it is a matter of perception as whether or not governmental
    laws, which reflect religious principles (i.e. laws against murder,
    theft, adultery, etc., which are Commandments of God) are to be seen as
    non-religious standards merely because they are enacted by government,
    stemming from various real problems in a society.  In that light, I
    would say that there are no governments or economies that can function
    without some degree of religious principle (by inference).  If the
    government or economy demands fair dealings and just exchange, that, by
    inference is religiousity in government and economy.
    
    

    #1. Could we discuss theocracy elsewhere ?  I'd rather not crowd the
    discussion of Capitalism/Christianity with my railings against the
    excesses of the Religious State.
    
    #2. The goal of a Capitalist is to convert one resource into another
    resource while accrueing a maximum benefit for "himself". An example of
    this is the person who buys stock low and sells it high, thus
    increasing "his" resource (cash). The most effective ways of improving
    profit ratios tend to include some amount of taking advantage of
    others, of getting the competition at a disadvantage and exploiting
    that disadvantage. At some point the level of advantage rises to what
    may be termed "unfair advantage". I believe that the greater the
    advantage employed, the less Christian the employer.
    	Someone quoted something where a farmer who held corn from the
    market when folks were hungry was critisized and advised that the corn
    should be sold. OK, I can "buy" that. Sell the corn so that people will
    not go hungry (unless it is unreplacable seed corn leaving a choice of
    hungry now or starving later). However, I don't believe that selling
    the corn at an inflated price is something Christ would have approved
    of. Why should the rich be well-fed while the poor starve? 
    	What was that quote about a rich man, heaven, a camel, and the eye
    of a needle?  And how does one get to be rich ?  Or to heaven ?  I
    resubmit, they are not mutually exclusive, but it is difficult to be
    quite good at both simultaneously. It's in the Bible, if you'd only
    read it. ;')

    I'm planning to turn down my next salary raise on moral grounds.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Re:  .11

Actually, I think capatalism leaves it to the *individual* to decide what
to do.  Now, it is true, that individuals often decide on what to do
based on money.  But not always.  And hopefully Christians base there
decision on what to do based on what God would have them to do.  Certainly
they do sometimes and don't at others.

Collis

    RE.7
       
        I am not sure that capitalism works without borrowing, debt
     interest and so on. 
        What you imagine may indeed be very different, but would
     it be capitalism ?
                                                           
                                                      Mike

    
    
     Re.9
    
          I don't think I'd include "lasting forever" as one of
       the characteristics of a successful economy, but I digress.
          You do raise an interesting point with your remark about
       the commitment to Jesus which seems to get right to heart
       of what I was thinking about.
          Is is possible to make this commitment and still be able
       to do work towards "traditional" capitalist goals such as
       maximum profit for minimum expenditure, continual sales increases
       and expansion of market share..ect.
           Would Christianity be say, be more compatible with smaller
        capitalist enterprises as opposed to very large businesses?
        Is it possible to serve both God and your stockholders ?
    
    
                                                       Mike                  
    

    
    
    Re .15,
    
    Mike,
    
    For the Christian, at least from my persective, there are no other
    goals other than to serve Jesus. Obviously all Christians are not in a
    capitialist environment, but a good many are. The mode of economy is
    really irrelevent, since the goals of the economic system are not the
    goals of the Christian's life. In the very simplest sense, a Christian
    ought to be faithful with all that is given him, whether that is a
    $5.00 an hour job or a multibillion dollar corporation. Reflecting the
    life of Jesus is the important criteria. This may mean minimizing
    expenses or maximizing profits. It does not mean insider trading or
    other illegal or immoral activity. 
    
    There is nothing inherrently wrong with profit, until it becomes ones
    god.
    
    
    Jamey
    

    	Well, Jamey, if we accept your perspective then a Christian cannot
    be a Capitalist. A Capitalist's goal is to profit in this world but you
    say "For a Christian ... there are no other goals than to serve Jesus."
    Then, of course, you went on to counter your own argument. We'll ignore
    the major logic-gap and go on. Near the end - off my screen - you said
    something about profit not being inherently evil. I can agree with
    that, too. But (you knew there HAD to be a 'but', right?) how much
    profit can you gather without doing something unkind to someone else?
    It's more profitable to install robots so you do that and put half of
    your employees out of work; is THAT a loving thing to do ?  It's more
    profitable to sell a product that will wear out and need replacing in 4
    years rather than one that will last for six; is THAT a loving thing to
    do ?  You can sell your grain to a brewery for a greater profit than if
    you sold it to a starving family; is THAT a loving thing to do ?  You
    can sell the low-income housing units you own to the developer of
    luxury condos and watch the new buyer put your ex-tenents on the
    street; is THAT a loving thing to do ?  I suggest that none of the
    examples are loving things and are all things a good Christian would
    feel are wrong. But they are profitable.

Re:  .17

Dave,

Perhaps exactly what "capitalism" is needs to be discussed.  The American
Heritage Dictionary defines it thus:

	An economic system, characterized by a free market and open
	competition, in which goods are produced for profit, labor
	is performed for wages, and the means of production and
	distribution are privately owned.

There are several ways of looking at this.  Is the primary aspect of
capitalism the motivation (i.e. making a profit)?  Or is the primary
aspect of capitalism private ownership?

Obviously (as Richard would say :-) ), private ownership is consistent
with Christianity.  (Although I am aware that there are those who would
disagree with this claim.)

Motivation is another matter.  Christianity is compatible with making
a profit.  Christianity is not compatible with anything that tries to
usurp the place of God (which "doing everything to make the last 
possible dollar" would do).

Personally, I think the profit aspect is more of a descriptive than a
prescriptive phrase in the dictionary, i.e. it reflects how people actually
behave in a free market economy rather than prescribing how they *should*
behave.

So, in this sense, I think a capitalistic economy is not inconsistent
with Christianity.

Collis

    re .17
    
    Watch it bub, or I'll tweak your nose again  :)
    
    >Well, Jamey, if we accept your perspective then a Christian cannot
    >be a Capitalist. 
    Obviously you wish to think so.
    
    >A Capitalist's goal is to profit in this world but you
    >say "For a Christian ... there are no other goals than to serve Jesus."
    One way might be to be an exemplary model of how a Christian might
    operate a business. The goal of the business is to serve Jesus, not
    profit. Profit may or may not happen.
    
    
    >But (you knew there HAD to be a 'but', right?) how much
    >profit can you gather without doing something unkind to someone else?
    Profit, in and of itself is not capable of inflicting unkindness. It
    takes sinful people to do that. Unlimited profit is possible without
    hurting anybody. I don't know that it has ever happened yet.
    
    >It's more profitable to install robots so you do that and put half of
    >your employees out of work; is THAT a loving thing to do ?  It's more
    >profitable to sell a product that will wear out and need replacing
    >in 4 years rather than one that will last for six; is THAT a loving
    >thing to do ?  You can sell your grain to a brewery for a greater profit
    >than if you sold it to a starving family; is THAT a loving thing to do ? 
    >You can sell the low-income housing units you own to the developer of
    >luxury condos and watch the new buyer put your ex-tenents on the
    >street; is THAT a loving thing to do ?  I suggest that none of the
    >examples are loving things and are all things a good Christian
    >would feel are wrong. But they are profitable.
    
    So? What's the point? These are all possible dilemmas a business person
    might face. The answer is to see what Jesus says on each issue. It is
    not stated here, but again you seem to be implying that pain and
    suffering are inherently 'bad'. The apparently 'unloving' reaction to
    any of these situations in your eyes might have infinitely more
    positive impact in reality. Like how many people have been put out of a
    comfy job only to find that the next job was a million times better.
    Like selling the grain to the brewery would keep dozens of families
    from becoming starving families. You seem to implying a judgement
    standard of what is right and wrong. How do you arrive at that
    standard?
    
    Dave, I do not recall your religious position. Are you a Christian?
    Just so that I know if you are coming at this from 'inside the
    Christian family' or from outside Christianity looking in.
    
    Jamey
    
             

    re:
>    #2. The goal of a Capitalist is to convert one resource into another
>    resource while accrueing a maximum benefit for "himself". An example of
>    this is the person who buys stock low and sells it high, thus
>    increasing "his" resource (cash). The most effective ways of improving
>    profit ratios tend to include some amount of taking advantage of
>    others, of getting the competition at a disadvantage and exploiting
>    that disadvantage. At some point the level of advantage rises to what
>    may be termed "unfair advantage". I believe that the greater the
>    advantage employed, the less Christian the employer.
    
    I believe that in this paragraph is found plenty reason, based on
    various proverbs in the Book of Proverbs, and various other Christian
    principles and standards, centered mainly around "taking advantage of
    others" such that will condemn Capitalism.
    
    However, I'm somewhat torn here, and I'll tell you why.  How are we to 
    interpret the parable about the three servents who were each given 5 or
    so talents, the one buried his, the second doubled, the third increased
    his tenfold, and the master comes back and gives the servent's money, 
    who buried his to the servent who had increased tenfold, and the
    servent that buried his was chastised or put out of the kingdom.  
    
    That parable, though I know some of my details above are wrong,
    however, clearly indicates one must capitalize on the talents or
    resources one has received.  Only thing is it doesn't show clearly how
    that servent who increased tenfold managed to do that, I think it had
    something to do with loan sharking, if I might call it that.  But
    basically the parable doesn't necessarily seem to focus on how the
    servent increased the money but merely that the servent had increased
    his master's financial standings.
    
    This parable, in fact, has fostered great controversy and support for
    "getting rich".

    Re: 17
    
    Very good, very interesting, the right kinds of issues that get to the
    heart.
    
    And the thought that comes to my mind is "no one has excess no one has
    lack".  The government may very well have to oversee business, such
    that it insures the distribution of resources so as to maintain
    everyone concerned, in the society, with necessary goods.  I mean if
    the grainery is offering higher prices that the starving family and the
    farmers are rushing to the grainerys to sell their grain, because they
    need a profit to sustain their lives, at some point someone is going to
    have to step in and say hey feed the starving family.  
    
    In that I see Christianity, in respect to Capitalism, as a proper
    mentor of the Capitalist concern, to prevent "excesses and enormities"
    of evils,  and to operate in "moderation", which I think is the prime
    focus of Christian behavior and character.  Thus, Capitalism could work
    in the Kingdom, as long as "moderation" is maintained in profit making. 
    Everyone makes a moderate profit, thus a "fair profit", "no one has
    excess and no one has lack" of profit that is!

    
>    I believe that in this paragraph is found plenty reason, based on
>    various proverbs in the Book of Proverbs, and various other Christian
>    principles and standards, centered mainly around "taking advantage of
>    others" such that will condemn Capitalism.
 
	Can you provide pointers or quotes please? In general I find much
	support of the buying and selling. Proverbs 31:16-18 for example.
	The Bible does talk about not oppressing a hired servant (Deut 23:14)
	but nowhere I know of does it frown on the hiring of people or say
	that such capitalistic things as a wage for a worker is taking 
	advantage of others. In general I do not see capitalism as properly
	run to be taking advantage of others. I am a capitalist. I've owned
	a business that I paid for with borrowed money, bought and sold goods at
	a modest profit. That is capitalism to me. I see no taking advantage
	of others there. That the Bible frowns on abuses, as it clearly
    	does (see Deut. 23:14), is clear; that Capitalism itself is
    	intrinsically abusive is not supported in the Bible as I can see.

			Alfred

    Alfred,
    	I did not mean to imply that Capitalism was intrinsically abusive,
    only that there is great potential for abuse in the system and that
    those who are motivated primarily by profit are more likely to succumb
    in that abuses typically lead to greater short-term profit.
    
    Playtoe,
    	I do not accept the parable of the talants as being about money. I
    see money as a metaphore refering to ALL the gifts - particularly
    LOVE!! - we have been given. Nor do I feel that profit is inherently
    bad, it is just a temptation. What's that frequently abused quote? Love
    of money is the root of all evil. That how it goes? I read that
    somewhere ...
    
    Jamey,
    	it is possible that someone might benefit from becoming unemployed,
    it sure helped me deal with my high blood pressure a while back. That
    does not justify seeking profit over kindness. The recent "package"
    that has been offered to a number of our co-workers is an excellent
    example of how to cut the workforce in a Christian way, it also
    reflects badly on the "bottom line". If you can't see the difference
    then maybe you need to study the spirit, rather than the letter, of
    your favorite book.

    
    re .23 Dave,
    
    ..and if in doing so puts the other 125,000 out of jobs... Your
    simplistic scenarios carry little weight. I got news for you. DEC is
    not building its transition program out of the kindness in its heart or
    upon Christian principles. If you don't think that every decision is 
    based somehow on the bottom line, I believe your eyes are closed.
    
    Nobody is trying to justify profit over kindness. Nobody except some
    imaginary straw man on your shoulder. You are very good at knocking him
    off, however.
    
    And your sarcasm on my reading habits is also very entertaining, a warm
    example of the kindness you are so bold about.
    
    Jamey

    Jamey,
    	that was not sarcasm. IF ... MAYBE ... If the IF doesn't fit the
    you don't have to read the rest of the sentence. If the IF does fit
    then I offered a solution which I thought would help you resolve the
    IF, but which you seemed to find offensive - or at least unkind. IF you
    don't like that suggestion then, as was MAYBE you could just ignore it,
    that is the other option fully implied in my statement.
    	Earlier you asked where I was coming from. Like MikeV, I rely
    strongly on the Sermon on the Mount for my understanding of Christ's
    teachings. But not solely. And I do not RELY on the OT at all except as
    a historical work with religious implications.(sorry, any reference to
    Mike ended with sentence #1) I do not know if there is a God, or a
    heaven, or a hell, or a devil, or even if there ever really was a
    Jesus. Nor does this matter to me, the TEACHINGS attributed to one
    called Christ are the philosophy I have chosen to follow and I am
    therefore a christian. Small "c". I do not follow this philosophy in
    order to get to heaven or in order to avoid hell or because my mother
    told me to, I follow it because I believe it is right and because I
    believe that those who follow it make the world a better place for us
    all.
    	About the package being just good business: it is good in that it
    will help maintain employee loyalty and moral. It is also VERY
    expensive in the short term when compared to the legal option of simply
    laying people off with 2 weeks pay and accrued vacation pay. The bottom
    line is a half BILLION dollars leaner than it might have been due to
    the generosity of these programs. No unions demanded these
    expenditures, no law even suggests them, rumor has it that not all of
    the VPs approve, what other motive is there ?  And be very careful how
    you express your answer, KO has access to this file too. ;-)