The European Dream?

[Hans Deventer]

Read a Dutch magazine on management today, featuring an article by American Jeremy Rifkin, president of The Foundation on Economic Trends. He recently wrote a book called The European Dream. Now I didn't know we had such a thing, but it seems we do. The book looks like an interesting read.

http://www.foet.org/European%20Dream.htm

[Bruce Carriker]

Economic growth, personal wealth, pursuit of individual self-interest

OR

Sustainable development, quality of life, nurturing of community.

Well, the problem is clear, here. The Europeans are a bunch of godless communists. Even European Christians appear to have misread the New Testament, and its emphases on unbridled capitalism, exploitation of the poor, and always, always, putting one's self-interest above the interest of others. What? You mean the New Testament doesn't say those things?

Hmmm...

[Bruce Carriker]

Doesn't it seem that true Biblical Christianity tends, over time, to undermine and destroy itself? Consider this: Wherever Christianity spreads, diligence and frugality are the result. And in time, these two things must lead to some degree of financial independence and self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency, in turn, leads to pride, materialism, all kinds of opinions and desires that are destructive of Christianity.

Is there some way to prevent this? And if not, must we consider that Christianity is inconsistent with itself and cannot stand. If this theory is true, Biblical Christianity must fail because wherever it is accepted, it will eventually destroy its own foundation.

NOTE: This is not my writing. Do you know who the writer is?

[Hans Deventer]

Doesn't it seem that true Biblical Christianity tends, over time, to undermine and destroy itself? Consider this: Wherever Christianity spreads, diligence and frugality are the result. And in time, these two things must lead to some degree of financial independence and self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency, in turn, leads to pride, materialism, all kinds of opinions and desires that are destructive of Christianity.

NOTE: This is not my writing. Do you know who the writer is?

Yes I do! John Wesley, in The Causes Of The Inefficacy Of Christianity, Works VII, 290.

[Dennis McClung]

Upon recently re-reading the entire Bible, I was shocked to find no support for democracy or capitolism in the scriptures. I was taught that these were dominant themes. Did I miss these?

[Bruce Carriker]

Clearly you have misread your Bible, Dennis. Jesus was a free market capitalist from the very beginning of his minsitry. He also supported the violent overthrow of Rome, followed by a transitional government, leading to free elections.

[Stan Hall]

Capitalism depends on the freedom of the individual. Individual choice including reaping the rewards of your successes and dealing with the consequences of your mistakes. Jesus was clearly pro individual freedom and hence capitalism.
Jesus of course promoted charity. But true charity is individual. Those who claim one political party is more "compassionate" than another are talking through their hats. You don't express compassion through political parties or government. Being forced by government to give to the poor isn't compassion and forcing others through government to give isn't either. Charity is voluntarily giving of your own time, money and resources.

It's not surprising that the Bible doesn't promote democracy. True democracy doesn't work. It has been said that democracy will work until the people discover that they can vote themselves goodies from the public purse. The system will then decline until it dies economically. This is what is happening in the US right now.
BTW the United States is not a democracy. It never was and was never intended to be. In fact the founding fathers specifically warned against it. You won't find the word democracy in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. We are a Constitutional Republic with some democratic elements.
We don't vote directly on federal laws. We elect representatives who vote on laws according to specified procedures. And some things which are specified in the Constitution, we don't vote on at all. In a democracy, majority rules. But we have certain guarantees of liberty in our Constitution which are supposed to be inviolate regardless of popular majority opinion.

Stan

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Man...I can't tell who's being serious and who's not now in this thread.

Jesus was not pro-individual over anything pro-community. I don't see how anything to do with true charity is individual. Does the charitable person give to himself? :fun04

(A problem with any English translation of the BIble is that we don't distinguish between the singular "you" and the plural "you.")

And the purest form of government is the monarchy. I'm pretty sure that's biblical.

[Hans Deventer]

Jesus of course promoted charity. But true charity is individual.

I don't understand this. Most of the Bible is addressed to groups of people. Our hyper individualism is a terrible distortion of everything God had in mind of how people should be living. Even God Himself if plural! (Elohim).


BTW the United States is not a democracy. It never was and was never intended to be. In fact the founding fathers specifically warned against it. You won't find the word democracy in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. We are a Constitutional Republic with some democratic elements.

Don't understand this either. This sounds to me like saying, "a Dodge is not a car for it is brown".

A republic is different from a monarchy in that it has no king as head of state, but a president. That's all. You either have a republic or a monarchy. So France is a republic, the Netherlands a monarchy, for instance.

Now monarchies and republics can be democratic or not. Both a president or a king can be dictators allowing no influence whatsoever of the people. But neither need be.

The level of democracy of course is different. Direct democracy is rare in a larger society. The free men of Athens could get together in BC 500 to discuss the city's issues. It's pretty hard to get all the Americans with voting rights together to do so. Hence, they elect representatives to do this for them, both at local, state and federal level. Most democracies will work this way, but they are still democracies.

Even my own country, being a monarchy, is only a monarchy as long as the people want it to be so. The monarch has not power to rule if the people and their elected representatives don't want that rule. Therefore, we are called a "constitutional monarchy".

[Hans Deventer]

And the purest form of government is the monarchy. I'm pretty sure that's biblical.

Actually, I think it would be theocracy.

[Ian Gentles]

I always have said democracy isnt biblical ;)

[Ian Gentles]

You got in right Hans, and our American friends are in rebelion agains their Biblical monarch....running for cover LOL ;)

[Ian Gentles]

There is a lot of truth in this article, yet it leaves out the problems.
Mass imigration from poorer member countries to richer ones, affecting richer ecconomies.
A monetry system that no-one likes, and UK will never join.
A very divided foreign policy outlook.
I could go on and on
Yet I do agree people and health care are important in Europe, and I wouldent call this communism!
Still, nations of Europe are very diverse, and problem remains, we just dont like each other in many cases! Dont ask too many Brits what they think of the French!
However as Hans said, this looks like a book I would be interested in reading, it may hurt American friends, but I guess self examination amoung any people cant hurt!

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Actually, I think it would be theocracy.

Isn't a theocracy monarchy?

I don't have time to find the scriptures about Christ as King.

[Hans Deventer]

Isn't a theocracy monarchy?

Yes, but not necessarily the other way around! So the point of the Bible is that God should rule. In fact, when the people of Israel wanted a king, God said they had rejected Him. So there is your difference, I'd say.

[Dave McClung]

It is common in the U.S. for people to distinguish between a "democracy" and a "pure democracy." A "pure democracy" would be one where every decision of government was voted on by all of the citizens (one citizen, one vote). Obviously, "pure democracy" isn't practical for a country; therefore, we exercise our rights by electing representatives.

Those who argue that the U.S. is not a "democracy" are usually referring to the fact that the U.S. Senate is not elected on a proportional basis. A senator from a sparsely populated state, like Wyoming, represents fewer people than a senator from a more densely populated state like California.

[Dave McClung]

So, the "Biblical Model" is casting lots. How was it determined who were the ones to be nominated for the "casting of lots?"

[Ian Gentles]

Maybe, just maybe, larger countries have too much say in world, regional, polotics, maybe we need to listen to smaller countries like the Netherlands? :fav18

[Bruce Carriker]

Man...I can't tell who's being serious and who's not now in this thread.



Jeremy,

Trust you know me well enough by know to know when I'm posting seriously, and when I'm posting tongue in cheek/sarcastically/hyperbolically.

[Stan Hall]

I guess I didn't make myself clear earlier. When I say that charity is individual, I mean that the choice must rest with the individual. It can be exercised in groups but each person in the group volunteers to do something charitable. I submit that you aren't being truly charitable if someone forces you to give to others. I also submit that you aren't expressing charity by giving away someone else's money. This is what government charity does. Charity involves giving of yourself.

In a democracy, issues are settled by majority rule. In the US, some issues are specified in the Constitution and are not voted on regardless of the majority. For example, if the majority should decide that senators should represent by population like the House of Representatives, we can't take a vote on it. The Constitution has the ultimate authority on that issue. If the majority should decide it's okay to enslave the minority, that majority loses. The 14th Amendment prohibits it. Many other issues are voted on, but require a super majority to pass.

BTW, it's been said that Jesus was a communist. Actually, that's true in the original meaning of the word. Jesus and the disciples were essentially a commune. Of course communism works fine if it's limited to a small group and is voluntary. A family is a commune. Each member of the group feels a vested interest in the welfare of all the other members. But in a large group, the members don't even know each other and that vested interest disappears. Then the rules must be enforced by a hierarchy and it's no longer voluntary. So governmental communism doesn't work.

Jesus of course encouraged charity. But it had to be voluntary on the part of each individual. Did Jesus ever say we should force others to be charitable? Even with salvation, we each have to choose to follow Him.

Stan

[Ian Gentles]

My family are all capatalists, they just want my money! :fav03

[Bruce Carriker]

So, the "Biblical Model" is casting lots. How was it determined who were the ones to be nominated for the "casting of lots?"

I think I remember reading something about rock, scissors, paper.