Defeat the radical left Press in America!

LOL, LOL -- Here we have Lucifer trying to tell Believers about MORALITY!!
Lucifer , if YOU knew anything at all about GOD , about his LOVE and HIS teachings , YOU would not be in the poor position you are in ! YES, Satan rules this evil world BUT in the end , GOD will take Command , Destroy all evil and keep HIS promise to HIS Believers! But YOU already know all of this! Right?
CASE CLOSED! Now OPEN your mind! THINK!

There's a brilliant rebuttal. And bereft of anything from the source material.

The problem is what to believe. The story keeps changing.

The Bible says you will know a tree by its fruit, and I see a bunch who are interested in justifying having property while their Lord didn't have a place to lie his head. To top it off it is being done in a legalistic manner rather than in a way that gets at ultimate truth.

Maybe Christians should try reading their word of god critically. Here's a couple of questions - why would Jesus be an advocate of giving up everything you owned? Why would his followers do it?
 
Werbung:
LOL, LOL -- Here we have Lucifer trying to tell Believers about MORALITY!!
Lucifer , if YOU knew anything at all about GOD , about his LOVE and HIS teachings , YOU would not be in the poor position you are in ! YES, Satan rules this evil world BUT in the end , GOD will take Command , Destroy all evil and keep HIS promise to HIS Believers! But YOU already know all of this! Right?
CASE CLOSED! Now OPEN your mind! THINK!

Do you have any evidence of what you just said? Athiests know more about christian morality than christians, because we look at the bible critically.
 
I would say that too, because there is a difference between socialism and communism. And a large one, at that.

This is always an amusing statement to me. There is a 'supposedly large difference', but in practice they act just the same, with a centrally controlling government authority dictating how the masses will function. And in either case, it doesn't work.

Explain please...

The ignorance on the left, claim that Iraq was about Oil. Yet prior to the war, we purchased oil on an open market, and after the war, we purchased oil on an open market. Since the way in which oil is bought and sold has not changed in the slightest, what evidence do you present to claim that Oil is the reason for our policies?

Further, during and after the war, not one single oil field was captured and controlled by US forces for the purpose of holding the field. All oil fields were turned over to the Iraqi State oil company. So we did not capture even one single barrel of oil. Further, the three US based oil companies that submitted for contracts with the Iraqi State oil corporation, to service their fields were turned down, and instead the contract given to China.

So, to be blunt, the left has absolutely no real evidence this was about oil whatsoever. It's all a grand conspiracy theory the wing-nuts are well known for.

By the corporate chiefs I mean all the executives, who could number in the thousands. So, it is not fuzzy math at all.

So all the thousands of CEOs and corporate chiefs whose actions are providing 270 Million jobs, are bad because?

Those countries claim to be communist, but are not. By believing those claims, you are believing and spreading the propaganda of those who you claim to be your enemies.

Tell me. What country would you cite as an example of Communism working? If there are none, what makes you think the system can work?

Even more lose jobs from the businesses that walmart destroys, and the only people it imploys are teenagers and the elderly, wich does not make up for the jobs lost. Those products they sell make a third of our population obese. You must also remember that they employ mass child-labor. They owe us all a huge debt wich can only be repaid by walmart surrendering its power to the workers.

It's always funny that companies that succeed in providing what the public wants, suddenly owe us a huge debt, in the minds of socialists.

Do you think that if Wal-mart didn't sell those products, that everyone would be thin? You do realize that America had an obesity problem in the 80s when Wal-mart was a little known retail outlet.

Further, Walmart can't destroy anything. If the population only goes to IGA, Wal-mart can't show up with guns, and force everyone to go to their stores instead. No, people go to Walmart instead of another shop, because they want what Walmart offers. You are basically blaming Walmart for providing what people want, at the price people want it at.

In short, you are complaining that Walmart serves US customers.

Second, I don't know about this child labor crap, but last time someone complained about corporations taking advantage of others, thousands of people in a third world country lost the only employment that was available. Instead of helping, they made them even more impoverished.

Why is communism always grouped together with fascism and nationalism? Thats just plain weird...

Plain weird? Watch this video, and you will understand where I am coming from.


I'm still wondering why you ignore the passage in Acts where Christians were suppose to sell their possessions for use by the Christian community.

But then again, when does the source material matter...

It said you are supposed to sell their possessions for the community? Or did it say that Christians sold their possession for the community? You do realize there is a difference between stating what happened, and commanding that it happen.

well I thank you for making it so clear you have no idea what actuly was going on...or why.

Yes of course. Saying what was reported has happening, in no way means I know what happened. Just like saying voter registration fraud, in no way results in fraudulent votes. Very logical as always.
 
Yes of course. Saying what was reported has happening, in no way means I know what happened. Just like saying voter registration fraud, in no way results in fraudulent votes. Very logical as always.

what you have said , is part of what happened, and how it was reported is the point..but to tell you what I mean, would give way the fun of seeing how long till little accorn can resond to the question. If you knew what it was, you would not be asking ..becuse you would know that the facts will change the way the story is viewed
 
It said you are supposed to sell their possessions for the community? Or did it say that Christians sold their possession for the community? You do realize there is a difference between stating what happened, and commanding that it happen.

Seems like striking someone dead for valuing their property over others is a fairly clear indicator that Jesus wasn't joking when he said to be his follower you had to give it all up.

I know, you're disappointed, because you have much. Don't worry. You're not alone in that. Just admit your earthly treasures will always take precedent over anything.

Again, don't feel bad, you're not alone. America is a "Christian" nation that will sell out any Christian tenet in the end to maintain its earthly station.

Speaking of how things went down with Jesus, the question still remains - why would Jesus ask his followers to be so unconcerned with property? Did he expect his followers to leach off society indefinitely?
 
Seems like striking someone dead for valuing their property over others is a fairly clear indicator that Jesus wasn't joking when he said to be his follower you had to give it all up.

Is that why they are stuck dead? Or was there another reason?

Speaking of how things went down with Jesus, the question still remains - why would Jesus ask his followers to be so unconcerned with property? Did he expect his followers to leach off society indefinitely?

Does it say unconcerned? Or does it say not to make 'stuff' the goal of life?

In fact, the Bible very specifically say that a man should provide for his house. That for a man to not provide for his house, makes him worse than an unbeliever.

The command is simply not to lay up your treasures on Earth. Meaning, don't make stuff in this world the goal. Why? Because it will break down, fall apart, become worthless, be stolen or destroyed.

That in no way translates into being a leach off society. That's shameful.
 
Is that why they are stuck dead? Or was there another reason?



Does it say unconcerned? Or does it say not to make 'stuff' the goal of life?

In fact, the Bible very specifically say that a man should provide for his house. That for a man to not provide for his house, makes him worse than an unbeliever.

The command is simply not to lay up your treasures on Earth. Meaning, don't make stuff in this world the goal. Why? Because it will break down, fall apart, become worthless, be stolen or destroyed.

That in no way translates into being a leach off society. That's shameful.

Could you point out where Jesus said that?

Jesus said God will give you what you need, so don't worry about it.

Matthew 6:25-34

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek: ) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
 
Seems like striking someone dead for valuing their property over others is a fairly clear indicator that Jesus wasn't joking when he said to be his follower you had to give it all up.

I know, you're disappointed, because you have much. Don't worry. You're not alone in that. Just admit your earthly treasures will always take precedent over anything.

Again, don't feel bad, you're not alone. America is a "Christian" nation that will sell out any Christian tenet in the end to maintain its earthly station.

Speaking of how things went down with Jesus, the question still remains - why would Jesus ask his followers to be so unconcerned with property? Did he expect his followers to leach off society indefinitely?

Good post, AIR, but as to the last paragraph, I think that Jesus didn't mean for His followers to leach off of society. St. Francis and Friars Minor are a good example of what Christians are supposed to be. They were non-violent, vegetarians, and they kept nothing but their robe, sandals, and food bowl from one day to the next. They worked each day for others and ate what God provided for them whether it was berries in the forest or food from the people for whom they worked. But you can see why this didn't catch on anymore than the other difficult things that Jesus demanded of His followers--it's just toooooooo difficult. So the story was adjusted and the church flourished, people got to be rich and powerful, and still got into Heaven. Now God has been co-opted by the Christian Right in this country and they have twisted the religion into hatred, pre-emptive war, destruction of the environment, and sempiternal greed--for the glory of God, Amen.

Shoot, right here on this site Andy (to be known as Klandy henceforth) is using KKK philosophy to promulgate hatred against gay people. It's a good thing that Jesus was ressurected or the poor bastard would be spinning in His grave. (In this instance the word "bastard" is grammatically correct in that Jesus was born out of wedlock.)
 
We're not addressing a large piece of the picture.

Mingling proceeds from property sales would not sustain a group for long. The practice was pretty much abandoned by the 2nd century AD because church leaders thought it better just to have their rich patrons make donations rather than liquidate all at once.

Why would there be an idea that forsaking your property and living in a community of believers was a good idea to start with?

The reason is Jesus of Nazareth was an apocalyptic prophet. Paul and a lot of others believed they were not going to die, and if they did, it would not be for long because the end times were nigh.

That didn't happen, so the story had to change.
 
This is always an amusing statement to me. There is a 'supposedly large difference', but in practice they act just the same, with a centrally controlling government authority dictating how the masses will function. And in either case, it doesn't work.
Communism is against central government. In communism, every area is organized in terms of a locality. In each of these, every single person votes on every single law and decision. No central government, and, in fact, no state in the modern sense of the term.

P.S Communism has never been put into practice.



The ignorance on the left, claim that Iraq was about Oil. Yet prior to the war, we purchased oil on an open market, and after the war, we purchased oil on an open market. Since the way in which oil is bought and sold has not changed in the slightest, what evidence do you present to claim that Oil is the reason for our policies?

Further, during and after the war, not one single oil field was captured and controlled by US forces for the purpose of holding the field. All oil fields were turned over to the Iraqi State oil company. So we did not capture even one single barrel of oil. Further, the three US based oil companies that submitted for contracts with the Iraqi State oil corporation, to service their fields were turned down, and instead the contract given to China.

So, to be blunt, the left has absolutely no real evidence this was about oil whatsoever. It's all a grand conspiracy theory the wing-nuts are well known for.

Thank you for verifying that, I am glad that I no longer will say that.



So all the thousands of CEOs and corporate chiefs whose actions are providing 270 Million jobs, are bad because?

Have you ever heard of wage slavery? In wage slavery, the worker is paid just enough to pay his bills and survive. Thus, he is stuck and cannot leave these boodsuckers without perishing slowly. That is why they are bad. They are keeping millions in a feudalist system, wich we were supposed to grow out of in the middle ages.



Tell me. What country would you cite as an example of Communism working? If there are none, what makes you think the system can work?

It has never been tried, so we cannot know for sure. Even Marx admitted that.



It's always funny that companies that succeed in providing what the public wants, suddenly owe us a huge debt, in the minds of socialists.

Do you think that if Wal-mart didn't sell those products, that everyone would be thin? You do realize that America had an obesity problem in the 80s when Wal-mart was a little known retail outlet.

Further, Walmart can't destroy anything. If the population only goes to IGA, Wal-mart can't show up with guns, and force everyone to go to their stores instead. No, people go to Walmart instead of another shop, because they want what Walmart offers. You are basically blaming Walmart for providing what people want, at the price people want it at.

In short, you are complaining that Walmart serves US customers.

Second, I don't know about this child labor crap, but last time someone complained about corporations taking advantage of others, thousands of people in a third world country lost the only employment that was available. Instead of helping, they made them even more impoverished.

They dont give us what they want, they slowly become the only option.

And I was only mentioning walmart specifically because you mentioned it first. All large companies do this.

They can show up with guns. For all we know, they could have a private army.

And, remember what I said about wage slavery? In the third world, they were using wage-LESS slavery, which is far worse. The third worlders can create thier own industrys. They have been doing it for thousands of years, why should they need walmarts help? And child labor is only acceptable if it is a branch of education.



Plain weird? Watch this video, and you will understand where I am coming from.

The makers of that video have no idea what communism is. It would fit in its own category: "locality-organized council democracy of the community and those who live in it throughout the world" But that is realy long, so we just say communism.
 
Communism is against central government. In communism, every area is organized in terms of a locality. In each of these, every single person votes on every single law and decision. No central government, and, in fact, no state in the modern sense of the term.

P.S Communism has never been put into practice.

Pure communism HAS been practiced, and successfully too, in the Heuterite Christian communities that emigrated from Russia to Canada. No one owned anything, everything was held communally and the decisions were made by consensus.
 
Could you point out where Jesus said that?

Jesus said God will give you what you need, so don't worry about it.

Matthew 6:25-34

1 Timothy 5:8
If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
 
Werbung:
Communism is against central government. In communism, every area is organized in terms of a locality. In each of these, every single person votes on every single law and decision. No central government, and, in fact, no state in the modern sense of the term.

P.S Communism has never been put into practice.

Right, so if it's never been put into practice, there is likely a reason for that.

Have you ever heard of wage slavery? In wage slavery, the worker is paid just enough to pay his bills and survive. Thus, he is stuck and cannot leave these boodsuckers without perishing slowly. That is why they are bad. They are keeping millions in a feudalist system, wich we were supposed to grow out of in the middle ages.

Wage slavery? Like I can't leave my job? Because I can. I can't open my own business? Because I can. I can't get a degree and get a better paying job? Because I can.

See, there's the problem with that theory. Alex Spanos, a multi-millionare, got his start selling baloney sandwiches. Wasn't he a slave to his wage? No, because he saved up some money, bought bread and baloney, and started selling sandwiches.

Dave Thomas who founded Wendy's started of running a KFC restaurant that was failing at the time. Wasn't he slave to his wage? No, he saved up, lived lean, and opened his own burger stand.

Or how about Chris Gardner, who was even homeless for a time, but worked his way up, and now runs his own stockbroker firm. Wasn't he a slave to his wage?

And there are hundreds of thousands of such cases, if not more all throughout the US. Way back when I worked at Wendy's, there was a Romanian there, who barely spoke English. He worked hard, lived lean, and learned English, and eventually went on to own the largest Hertz rent-a-car in Columbus, the one next to the international air port. How did he do that? Wasn't he a slave to his Wendy's wage?

The wage slave theory is false.

It has never been tried, so we cannot know for sure. Even Marx admitted that.

Social evolution would suggest that if such a system was achievable, that clearly by now with all the attempts at doing it, one would have succeeded if it were possible.

They dont give us what they want, they slowly become the only option.

And I was only mentioning walmart specifically because you mentioned it first. All large companies do this.

They can show up with guns. For all we know, they could have a private army.

And, remember what I said about wage slavery? In the third world, they were using wage-LESS slavery, which is far worse. The third worlders can create thier own industrys. They have been doing it for thousands of years, why should they need walmarts help? And child labor is only acceptable if it is a branch of education.

Right. Yeah how many stores have you been forcibly pushed into at gun point? Please list off the times. For me, the answer is zero.

It is impossible for a store to become the only option if they don't give us what we want. Why? Two reasons... the only way to force a company out of business, is by offering better products, or a better price, or both. If Walmart was vastly more expensive, or didn't have the products we wanted, no one would go there.

Second, if Walmart somehow were to drive another store out, though it be successful and profitable, someone else would move in. That is the essence of a free-market.

For example, here in Columbus, the store brand Big Bear, closed down, and folded up. What happened? Another company bought up the most successful of those old Big Bear stores, and now we have Giant Eagle.

The makers of that video have no idea what communism is. It would fit in its own category: "locality-organized council democracy of the community and those who live in it throughout the world" But that is realy long, so we just say communism.

Just out of curiosity, is it possible that the other 90% of the population that understands communism differently than you, might not all be wrong, but perhaps you are the one who is wrong?

I talk to economists, commentators, professors, and many others, and although I won't say that "no one" thinks the way you do, you are vastly in the minority.

Again, your specific version of communism has never been tried, never succeeded, never been implemented, even by people who openly claimed to be communists.

Which leads me to believe that your idea of communism doesn't exist.
 
Back
Top