I'll speak to what... whatever this is. Let's just stick with Jesus for now.
1. The Temple Incident
Not quite sure what your point is here other than to bolster my case. Jesus ran those out who put property over spiritual matters. He didn't keep the wealth did he? Wouldn't that be stealing?
Why didn't Christ "turn the other cheek" as you seem to think He should have?
2. The Pharisees "devouring" widows' houses
Matthew 23:14 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Therefore you will be punished more severely."
So let's see, people who worry more about getting property than spiritual matters will be punished more severely. Another couple of verses to note
Matthew 23:16-17 ""Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?
Thanks Jesus, that's what I have been saying.
That is not what you have been saying at all. Christ taught that one's property was to be defended, not stolen, regardless of the authority of the Courts which the Pharisees, and lawyers (scribes) represented at the time. It matter not what the hypocrites declared publicly when their actions demonstrated where their heart was.
What you are attempting to do is use Christ's words to defend your own hypocrisy.
3. Parable of the tenants
So let me get this straight, you think a parable that teaches that we are to bear fruit for God, i.e. do the spiritual work his Son told us to do, is an argument to be concerned with your property.
No. What it demonstrates is that one is not required to "turn the other cheek" under all circumstances. Under your "law" self defense would be condemned, and Christ did not teach that at all, and self defense also pertained to ones property.
Why does a father have to be concerned about property in raising a child when God will give him what he needs? Sounds like more excuses to worry about earthly treasures over Heaven.
What does God give a person to use to provide for his family? Is it not the "property"? If one has not that property how is he to provide?
What does one do when another attempts to steal what God has given him?
So whatever that was, because it certainly wasn't a rebuttal, it just proves my point.
Only because you are guided by the blind.
Speaking of "line upon line, precept upon precept", let's get back to something I brought up -
Luke 6:29-31
"If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."
What part of those lines don't you get?
And yet you have in Luke 22:36 "The He said to them 'But now I tell you, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.' "
Now, none is denying that Christians are to be generous, and facts show they are, however, it is not taught that one should just lay down, and be a floor mat while the likes of you destroy them. God gave commands for everything, and yet He also gave them free will. Christ also taught in John 15:13 "Greater love has no one than this, that to lay down his life for his friends".
It's not Christian values I have a problem with. If I actually met someone who could follow them, I'd admire them. Most people I meet who are "Christians" see their cross as maintaining a home and griping that taxes should be lower. I'm sure that's what Jesus had in mind, it's just no one can point it out to me.
I've often argued that Christians should just withdraw from society as the Amish, and Bereans, have done, and do business only with other Christians in the manner as the first Christians did in your example given in Acts. They should strive to be "perfect as their God in heaven is perfect." However, if they were to do so then they could not be examples to others, and people like you would just take advantage of them, or kill them as the Romans, and the apostate Roman Catholic Church, did. They would then have to form their own nation as the Jews have done, and suffer the persecutions you propose. It will come to pass as Christ foretold in the Book of Revelation.
Till then they will remain the imperfect beings they are, and act much like the rest of the world with their carnal feelings. Instead of proposing their destruction you should be singing praises to God that they are here to "control" what would obviously be a chaotic world, by their example. Without their beliefs we would have no Constitution, and very few of the laws passed concerning morality would have been passed. And as fewer numbers profess to be Christian the country is becoming more chaotic as secularism is accepted.
Not all who claim to be Christian are truely Christian. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc., are examples of that, lacking the knowledge to act as such. God said "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge", just as He said "Many are called, few are chosen".
However, your proposal shows why even in this time Christians are not safe, and need to be wary of the tenuous situation they are in, and need to be prepared.
