Capitalism:A Love Story

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If I am reading this right (not sarcastically) George Bailey was rich because he had friends. Not because of money.
They came to his aid in his hour of need.

"Remember, no man is a failure who has friends."

That's right. In addition he was rich because his prayers were answered and God fulfilled His promise to provide George with what he truly needed as opposed to what George Bailey wanted or thought he needed before.

While God may certainly use individuals to provide material needs and comforts to others, the Great Commission is to spread The Good News to others. Or in other words, enrich their spirits.

Church missions and the Salvation Army do a wonderful job of combining the two. Government must seperate them.
 
Have to agree with that. Being a pacifist is nice, but at some point that is simply not workable anymore.

That's cool, your opinion, I respect that.

But in my opinion, I am not living in a fantasy world. I am an idealist? Sure.
Just remember that whatever you focus on expands. That can be good and that can be bad.

How else do you expect peace to happen? Why just perpetuate violence? It goes nowhere.
As for "revenge" that's up to God not me.

Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Violence begets violence.
And that takes on many forms..... be it verbal or be it physical or be it spiritual.



Lay down
Lay down your guns
All your daughters of Zion
All your Abraham sons

I don't know if I can make it
I'm not easy on my knees
Here's my heart and you can break it
I need some release, release, release

We need
Love and peace
Love and peace
 
Conveniently leaving off "in spirit" as well (referred to directly in Matthew and assumed in Luke) and giving them the totally wrong reward to boot. Earth and today rather than heaven and eternity.

Think what you may about capitalism, Wall St and the rich & the poor, just don't edit or take out of context biblical quotes to backup your beliefs to Christians is all I would ask.

Sorry, I apologize. But your interpretation is not what I believe, so please respect that. And GASP, yes, a liberal can be a Christian. Jesus was one afterall.


And how do you know I am not a Christian? You presume much don't you?
 
That's cool, your opinion, I respect that.

But in my opinion, I am not living in a fantasy world. I am an idealist? Sure.
Just remember that whatever you focus on expands. That can be good and that can be bad.

How else do you expect peace to happen? Why just perpetuate violence? It goes nowhere.
As for "revenge" that's up to God not me.

Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Violence begets violence.
And that takes on many forms..... be it verbal or be it physical or be it spiritual.



Lay down
Lay down your guns
All your daughters of Zion
All your Abraham sons

I don't know if I can make it
I'm not easy on my knees
Here's my heart and you can break it
I need some release, release, release

We need
Love and peace
Love and peace

Answering an attack doesn't equal revenge. Well, on that issue, I don't believe in God, so I wouldn't leave revenge up to a being I don't believe in. On the other hand, that would imply I were going to take revenge. I don't think I would.

Peace will neither happen when you let a force that is not unto peace prevail. Just take historical examples. The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. The officer's of July 20, 1944. All the other thousands of resistance fighters throughout Europe. And in the end all the countries that answered to the attacks of Germany, Italy and Japan. It would have been foolish for all those groups not to act, or to go and recite the bible hoping that would change anything. And in that line, the US's response to September 11, by going after those who did it at the place where they gathered, conspired and trained. You think al Quaeda would suddenly found peace if the US didn't answer?
There is limits to any ideology. And I'm no person for any extremes. Sometimes a situation demands to go after your personal beliefs and values.

Neither a bible quote nor a U2 quote are a great authority for me, there. I love their music to death, but I'm not adjusting my life after their lyrics. Hardly so, to most songs I don't even know the lyrics and have never bothered to look them up.
 
That's cool, your opinion, I respect that.

But in my opinion, I am not living in a fantasy world. I am an idealist? Sure.
Just remember that whatever you focus on expands. That can be good and that can be bad.

How else do you expect peace to happen? Why just perpetuate violence? It goes nowhere.
As for "revenge" that's up to God not me.

Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Violence begets violence.
And that takes on many forms..... be it verbal or be it physical or be it spiritual.

I see your point, but idealism is not practical in the real world, at least in my opinion.

If you want to practise turning the other cheek on a personal level, that's quite an honourable way to live your life. And I commend you for it.

But as Vincent said, sometimes pacifism is not a realistic goal, especially when there are millions of lives at stake.
 
While God may certainly use individuals to provide material needs and comforts to others, the Great Commission is to spread The Good News to others. Or in other words, enrich their spirits.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying the 2 are mutually exclusive? ie, in your eyes, God only helps people that are worthy to be helped becuase they have heard the "Good News"?
 
exactly WHAT DOES "poor in Spirit" is supposed to mean, anyway?


I would of thought that being "rich in Spirit " ....

ie some one who abundantly practices the richness of Jesus's spirituality--
"cloth the naked/ feed the poor/ heal the sick etc" would (most likely) be
the kind of person who'd easily getting into Heaven? (Oh yes and believing in Christ-
tho i disagree with that. )
 
Really? Ghandi and MLKjr lived in the real world and it worked for them.
:zen:

Note that I said "sometimes" and not "all the time". There is a difference, you know. :shrug: And you are talking about people who used pacifist means to achieve goals that are different from the point I'm trying to make.

Tell me, if you are attacked on the scale of Sept. 11, what do you do? Just take it?
 
Really? Ghandi and MLKjr lived in the real world and it worked for them.
:zen:

There was this word included, sometimes. Yes, they are examples where pacifism proved more successful. In general I, and I guess BoMac as well, agree that the peaceful way is the better, and has a greater chance of achieving its goal. Or at least a good compromise.
Still, there is no black and white. In a totalitarian regime, like under the Nazis or certain other ones, neither Ghandi nor MLK would've gotten far.
 
Note that I said "sometimes" and not "all the time". There is a difference, you know. :shrug: And you are talking about people who used pacifist means to achieve goals that are different from the point I'm trying to make.

Tell me, if you are attacked on the scale of Sept. 11, what do you do? Just take it?

The micro is the macro. What's in your living room, your home and in your heart is reflected in the world physically. That's a pretty big concept but I don't expect you to get that. It's takes years for some, and never for others.

And yes, I don't think we should strike back ever regardless of the size of the attack. That's my belief. I honor those who died by not promoting further destruction of innocent life.
 
Answering an attack doesn't equal revenge.

Yes it does.

Websters:
Main Entry: re·venge
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈvenj\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·venged; re·veng·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French revenger, revengier, from re- + venger to avenge — more at vengeance
Date: 14th century
1 : to avenge (as oneself) usually by retaliating in kind or degree
2 : to inflict injury in return for <revenge an insult
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying the 2 are mutually exclusive? ie, in your eyes, God only helps people that are worthy to be helped becuase they have heard the "Good News"?

No, I mentioned the Salvation Army as a group that does both. A Christian is to live as Christ which compels that we love our neighbor, be compassionate, feed the hungry, clothe the poor and help the sick.

This personal charity is an entirely different thing than the government arbitrarily deciding who has too much and who has too little and going about trying to make things "fair." As an American and as a head of household I can be concerned about the lopsided distribution of wealth in our society, but not as a Christian. I can evaluate things and see what I might do to change my lot in life, but I can't be envious, jealous or covet the belongings of others.

We can differ about the role of government but it's risky to selectively take passages out of the Bible to defend one's position, which Michael Moore does, is my main point. Especially when they are not consistent in that regard.
 
(Self-) Defense is revenge? An attack is quite a bit more than a simple insult. Revenge would be mindlessly going after those attackers and brutally killing them simply for what they have done, instead of trying to defend your family/country and answering with as much as required and as little as possible.

It's saving your own life or that of loved ones. Or, if you are appointed leader of a state, your fellow citizens. Following your belief, if someone were behind me and my family I would just be sitting there waiting until it's my turn. And if I were trying to take action I would take revenge.
This way we will be seeing Srebrenica and Rwanda ever again.

I honestly don't mind if I never "get that concept".

self-defense
Main Entry: self–de·fense
Pronunciation: \ˌself-di-ˈfen(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 1651

1 : a plea of justification for the use of force or for homicide
2 : the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative

Just focussing on the personal level, but one could extrapolate from there.
 
We can differ about the role of government but it's risky to selectively take passages out of the Bible to defend one's position, which Michael Moore does, is my main point. Especially when they are not consistent in that regard.

He would be better served not to take up this tactic conveniently used by the Christian Conservatives for years trying to prove their point. And they might have a greater chance in a discussion if they refrained from doing so.
 
This personal charity is an entirely different thing than the government arbitrarily deciding who has too much and who has too little and going about trying to make things "fair."



do you think you are the best judge of how resources should be used, and who is the neediest, and that you have the best solutions to the mind-bogglingly complex problems we face? could a christian charity have responded effectively to the 2004 tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, or the Australian wildfires?
 
The micro is the macro. What's in your living room, your home and in your heart is reflected in the world physically. That's a pretty big concept but I don't expect you to get that. It's takes years for some, and never for others.

And yes, I don't think we should strike back ever regardless of the size of the attack. That's my belief. I honor those who died by not promoting further destruction of innocent life.

Well, it's quite obvious that I will never agree with an idealist, and as you're comfortable in your own skin, and I in mine, we'll just leave it at that.
 
Moore wants to, according to his propaganda, "replace capitalism with pure democracy?"

Sounds like what got Hitler elected.
 
Moore wants to, according to his propaganda, "replace capitalism with pure democracy?"

Sounds like what got Hitler elected.

His point is our government is not a true Democracy now.
The corporations own Congress lock, stock and barrel. Our elected officials are not doing what we sent them there to do, to represent us! They are voting based on the almighty corporation's bottom line.
Save for a handful of upstanding representatives who do not take money from special interests groups like Bernie Sanders, the rest of them are being bribed. You should see who is on the list of campaign contributions of our elected representatives. Yes even people I voted for and admire.
Democrats and Republicans both are taking money from
these groups and making laws according to their best interests, not the American people.
I have said before and I will say it again...the real issue of ALL issues is campaign finance reform. Nothing will change until the system is purged and the corruption is gone.
 
No, I mentioned the Salvation Army as a group that does both. A Christian is to live as Christ which compels that we love our neighbor, be compassionate, feed the hungry, clothe the poor and help the sick.

This personal charity is an entirely different thing than the government arbitrarily deciding who has too much and who has too little and going about trying to make things "fair." As an American and as a head of household I can be concerned about the lopsided distribution of wealth in our society, but not as a Christian. I can evaluate things and see what I might do to change my lot in life, but I can't be envious, jealous or covet the belongings of others.

We can differ about the role of government but it's risky to selectively take passages out of the Bible to defend one's position, which Michael Moore does, is my main point. Especially when they are not consistent in that regard.

You know, conservative Christians are always going on about making government more in tune with God. You'd think helping the poor would be one of those prime examples. Just pointing out that every side takes passages out of the Bible to defend one's position. Why is it okay to put God on our money and then deny it to those who truly need it?

But, you know, continue defending insurance companies and CEO's and, heaven forbid, the guy who drives an Escalade and lives in a 2 million dollar home. He needs all the cents he can get.
 
This personal charity is an entirely different thing than the government arbitrarily deciding who has too much and who has too little and going about trying to make things "fair." As an American and as a head of household I can be concerned about the lopsided distribution of wealth in our society, but not as a Christian. .

Really? Wow. As a Christian I not only think it's my concern but a calling to serve those who have less than others, or for that matter less than me.

You say the word government like it's evil. It is not.
I think FDR was one if not the greatest President this country has ever had. He had vision and compassion to instill (without saying it) Christian values to help heal the sick and feed the hungry.
I think the programs he started which are still in tact today, were very Christ-like.

I think what you don't like is paying taxes to help others because it effects your bottom line.
Do you equate your money with your self worth?
 
(Self-) Defense is revenge? An attack is quite a bit more than a simple insult. Revenge would be mindlessly going after those attackers and brutally killing them simply for what they have done, instead of trying to defend your family/country and answering with as much as required and as little as possible.

It's saving your own life or that of loved ones. Or, if you are appointed leader of a state, your fellow citizens. Following your belief, if someone were behind me and my family I would just be sitting there waiting until it's my turn. And if I were trying to take action I would take revenge.
This way we will be seeing Srebrenica and Rwanda ever again.

I honestly don't mind if I never "get that concept".

Did I say an attack was a simple insult? That's not what I meant if it was implied.
Self defense to me is flinching and blocking someone from hitting me in the moment, a reflex. Yes, there is nothing wrong with the reflex of defending yourself, your life and your family.

Where I am coming from is the WAR is the answer to everything mantra. I understand the rage and the need to lash out, I have been there, but in doing so ( on a large scale such as a planned invasion of a country, large scale bombing which inadvertanly kills more innocent people) this planed retaliation does nothing more than perpertuate the violence and you play right in to the provokers hand. They want you to react, they want you to hit them back so they can justify hitting you...and it never ENDS!
 
Really? Wow. As a Christian I not only think it's my concern but a calling to serve those who have less than others, or for that matter less than me.
Stop that ! Did you not read the paragraph directly preceding that?
A Christian is to live as Christ which compels that we love our neighbor, be compassionate, feed the hungry, clothe the poor and help the sick.

However, good for you. It's highly rewarding isn't it? However, one goal should be that perhaps those you help today will be able to help someone else another day. Government programs tend to make dependents of otherwise able bodied people which some of us find sad.
You say the word government like it's evil. It is not.
I think FDR was one if not the greatest President this country has ever had. He had vision and compassion to instill (without saying it) Christian values to help heal the sick and feed the hungry.
Ok, but the Founding Fathers had some other things to say about the size and scope of government.
I think the programs he started which are still in tact today, were very Christ-like.
Of course he didn't exactly "turn the other cheek" after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor did he?
I think what you don't like is paying taxes to help others because it effects your bottom line.
Ahhh, so now who's assuming around here?
Do you equate your money with your self worth?

How could you even think that after my George Bailey example?
 
We can differ about the role of government but it's risky to selectively take passages out of the Bible to defend one's position, which Michael Moore does, is my main point. Especially when they are not consistent in that regard.
It seems that all you're really saying here is that you dislike religion-based advocacy of particular policies when you happen not to personally support those policies. If it's okay for Christians who consider the criminalization of abortion a religious imperative to advocate (and vote) for that policy on those grounds, then it's okay for Christians who consider economic policies meant to improve the lot of the poor equally imperative to do likewise. And in neither case are these individuals going to be directly, personally responsible for addressing the resulting resource demands. You could certainly argue that Bible verses are emphatically not appropriate as arguments for this or that legislation on the floor of Congress; but trying to prevent individuals, including public figures, from advocating for and voting their religious values in the public sphere more generally is a lost cause, for better and for worse.

Also, a quibble about your conflating Matthew 5:3--since you singled out Moore's use of that--with 'Great Commission' theology: having looked up the Greek for that passage (hoi ptochoi toi pneumati), you're correct that it clearly doesn't refer to material impoverishment; the Greek literally conveys "those who are as beggars in the realm of the spirit," with 'spirit' tellingly being in the dative case, hence an indirect object. However, the passage is commending those who are 'spiritually poor' in this sense; it's saying, to live at every moment with a humble awareness of your total dependence on God for your spiritual welfare--as opposed to arrogantly assuming yourself 'right with God' by virtue of having dutifully 'achieved' all the superficial markers of righteous living--is in fact to be precisely the sort of person 'the kingdom of Heaven' was meant for. That's not a comment on 'Great Commission' theology more generally, I'd leave it to Christians to hash that out, but there's really no legitimate way to interpret this passage to mean that 'the poor in spirit' are in need of ministering from the not-so-poor-in-spirit; quite the contrary. Matthew 5:3 would appear to mean neither what Michael Moore seems to want it to mean, nor what you seem to want it to mean.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom