The Bible; The Unabridged-Version

[Stalin]

It always annoys me when a computer book or similar is described as, say,the Linux Bible or Word 2007 Bible.

When I by a computer book, I expect the truth, not a collection of fantasies.

Comrade Stalin

 

[Dr.Who]

Charity does not equal capitalism. Does it?

Of course not. Charity is just an example of one thing that capitalists do. You might as well say that selling eggs does not equal capitalism. Socialists are free to engage in charity as well but when they do it it is contrary to the goals of their government style, and the "socialists" in the US engage in charity far less than the rest of the population.

 

[Dr.Who]

Here's an article about one of the pioneer Christians of our day:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6907681.ece

This man maintains that he is doing God's work. I gotta tell ya' that I think that you can't serve God and Mammon, real Christianity is antithetical to Capitalism. You cannot love others as yourself while charging all the market will bear.

The article was anti-capitalist tripe and the notion that Christianity is antithetical to capitalism is silly. Does anyone doubt that the main intent of the article was not to report any financial news but to slam capitalism? Does anyone doubt that Christianity is consistent with capitalism? We can lay out the evidence if anyone cares.

We might believe the anti-capitalist propaganda just a little more if the people who spread it stopped living their lives as capitalists - going to work, exchanging labor for money, spending that money for food, etc., and if they started some communes and made them successful.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

Of course not. Charity is just an example of one thing that capitalists do. You might as well say that selling eggs does not equal capitalism. Socialists are free to engage in charity as well but when they do it it is contrary to the goals of their government style, and the "socialists" in the US engage in charity far less than the rest of the population.

You are focusing on capitalists a little too much. The mindset was that the believers did not have private property. Forget the underlying legal structure.

Let's move on and ask is why did they feel that they could all live in this community with people selling their possessions to sustain it? They had to realize that such a system was unsustainable.

 

[Dr.Who]

You are focusing on capitalists a little too much. The mindset was that the believers did not have private property. Forget the underlying legal structure.

I am not sure if you are trying to say that they did not have private property so I will respond.

They did indeed retain the private property they owned.

Let's move on and ask is why did they feel that they could all live in this community with people selling their possessions to sustain it? They had to realize that such a system was unsustainable.

It was indeed a community but I am not so sure that they lived in it. I don't think the text says whether they lived in it or lived elsewhere but were a part of an important church community. Since they retained their property if they lived in the community then the property went unlived in. History tells us that this group had no church building for 200 years so I doubt they had one place they all lived in. History also tells us that they met in the various homes of the people who were part of the community.
http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/jac_arnold/CH.Arnold.CH.4.html

Most scholars assume that this early community thought that the end of the world was near so they would have had no concern about it being sustainable if most are right.

What made the community work was that individuals made voluntary choices to sacrifice greatly for each other. And yet, when we look at the letters describing the church they had problems. They were not free of difficulty.

Some would hold this community up as the best example of what men can do while living this way. Others would credit the Holy Spirit and not men. But today Jerusalem is still there and the church of Jerusalem, well, I can find no record of the community still existing. Perhaps due to the diaspora in the 8th century.

So why did they feel they could live in a community with people selling possessions to sustain it? We don't know that they lived there and that seems unlikely. They most likely only sold possessions to take care of the needs of those who were starving as a result of persecution. This would have been a temporary and small condition easily handled by the community up until persecution touched them all.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

I am not sure if you are trying to say that they did not have private property so I will respond.

They did indeed retain the private property they owned.


It was indeed a community but I am not so sure that they lived in it. I don't think the text says whether they lived in it or lived elsewhere but were a part of an important church community. Since they retained their property if they lived in the community then the property went unlived in. History tells us that this group had no church building for 200 years so I doubt they had one place they all lived in. History also tells us that they met in the various homes of the people who were part of the community.
http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/jac_arnold/CH.Arnold.CH.4.html

Most scholars assume that this early community thought that the end of the world was near so they would have had no concern about it being sustainable if most are right.

What made the community work was that individuals made voluntary choices to sacrifice greatly for each other. And yet, when we look at the letters describing the church they had problems. They were not free of difficulty.

Some would hold this community up as the best example of what men can do while living this way. Others would credit the Holy Spirit and not men. But today Jerusalem is still there and the church of Jerusalem, well, I can find no record of the community still existing. Perhaps due to the diaspora in the 8th century.

So why did they feel they could live in a community with people selling possessions to sustain it? We don't know that they lived there and that seems unlikely. They most likely only sold possessions to take care of the needs of those who were starving as a result of persecution. This would have been a temporary and small condition easily handled by the community up until persecution touched them all.

"No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had."

What part of that are you having trouble with? They believed their possessions were not their own. Are you saying the Bible lies? THAT is at the heart of the matter. It does not matter about the legalese situation, it's about what the believer believes.

Early believers would sell their all the property. Coming into the second century, church leaders began asking members to simply donate, i.e. pass the plate around.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

FAITH UNDER FIRE
Graduating students defy ACLU
Seniors stand and recite Lord's Prayer

Posted: June 05, 2009
10:45 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Principal Frank Lay

Members of the graduating class of 2009 at Florida's Pace High School have expressed their objections to ACLU restrictions on statements of religious faith at their school by rising up en masse at their ceremony and reciting the Lord's Prayer.

The incident happened just days ago, but has been virtually ignored by media outlets throughout the region, according to officials with Liberty Counsel, a legal team representing Principal Frank Lay and teacher Michelle Winkler in their battle with the ACLU, which had complained that faculty and teachers were talking about their beliefs.

Nearly 400 graduating seniors at Pace, a Santa Rosa County school, stood up at their graduation, according to Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel.

Parents, family and friends joined in the recitation, and applauded the students when they were finished, Staver told WND.

As an "outsider" (Romanian chick) would say....

"UPYERZ!!!!"

(I know....there's a lot lost, in translation... )

 

[Dr.Who]

"No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had."

What part of that are you having trouble with? They believed their possessions were not their own. Are you saying the Bible lies? THAT is at the heart of the matter. It does not matter about the legalese situation, it's about what the believer believes.

Early believers would sell their all the property. Coming into the second century, church leaders began asking members to simply donate, i.e. pass the plate around.

Before someone can sell something they must first own it. The leaders of that society even said point blank that one couple owned the property that they sold. And the very sentence you quote uses the words "his possessions".

Of course they owned their stuff, they just chose to share it. And the bible never makes the claim that they did not own it. The people themselves expressed their willingness to share it by claiming that none of their possessions were their own. Kind of like saying "mi casa es su casa" (my house is your house). The owner of the house never really means that their house belongs to someone else and in the very sentence claims that they do indeed own it. What they mean is that they are willing to be hospitable.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Before someone can sell something they must first own it. The leaders of that society even said point blank that one couple owned the property that they sold. And the very sentence you quote uses the words "his possessions".

Of course they owned their stuff, they just chose to share it.

Yeah...there was a LOT o' sharing, back then.


​