that is what it turned into, that wasn't what was attempted at happening...
What they attempted to do was create a socialistic state... It didn't work, but the ideals are still the ame...
Yes, there are bad things about communism, but the fact is it was just people trying to have the same exact ideals that Jesus espoused (taht being socialistic ones)...
Stop listening to the lame propoganda that all communism/socialism is bad... It isn't... Its just people trying to reach an ideal where everyone has all thier needs met and no one is in poverty... did it work? No... But that's because they didn't FOLLOW THROUGH on waht the initial plan was, not because the initial plan was flawed...
one more point. ALL communism/socialism is not only bad but anti-thetical and evil and distructive to both humanity and to the spiritual health of mankind.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
one more point. ALL communism/socialism is not only bad but anti-thetical and evil and distructive to both humanity and to the spiritual health of mankind.
Tell that to the original church... who shared everything among them...
And Paul didn't take up a collection for the Jerusalem church to help them in thier poverty after the Jerusalem council... Its actually thought of by more scholars as a pay-off to allow him to preach that the gentiles don't have to follow the law...
Tell that to the original church... who shared everything among them...
I posted before about the ellipses inherent in the phrase, "... had all things in common..." (Acts 2:44 and Acts 4:32). Peter expounds on this principle showing the respect that the early church community had for the private possession of goods; "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" (Acts 5:4). Both before and after the possession was sold it belonged to Ananias and Sapphira. They were free to determine what become of the funds. The point where they ran afoul was in trying to deceive the community about their intentions. But the possession itself, Peter emphatically states- was "thine own."
That's not real communism. Real communism would have dictated that the possession belonged to the church and Ananias and Sapphira had no power over it at all.
Concerning collections at church, Paul says, "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." (1 Corinthians 16:2). The funds were to be collected from individuals based upon the abilities (and willingness) of those individuals to give. No real communism here.
As Sister A. and others have pointed out, the problem with modern Communism is that it is a philosophical system based wholly upon materialism - the idea that there is no Spiritual realm. We have a bone to pick with the Communists long before we even get to economic issues.
Redeemedcynic, I think you have an idealized view of socialism/communism when you say, "[Jesus] held and preached the same ideals that communism/socialism is founded on..." There have been "communistic" movements in history (the Lollards in Britain and the Peasant Revolt in Germany) that were at least partially based upon the Christian teaching. But the example of Peter in Acts 5, seems to me to be the Apostle's emphatically saying "No" to communism.
In Acts 5, they had an ideal situation for a communist revolt. Peter and the others could have easily used the circumstances to plunder Ananias and any one else with material goods. Instead, in a courtroom-like setting, Peter argues emphatically, the "possession is yours," and "it's in your own power what happens with that possession..." thus stifling any notions of communism even planting root there.
The ideal of communism is truly a noble and good ideal, in my opinion. However, it really is best to leave it in the realm of ideals as we make an appeal to one another's hearts to be open and giving. But human experience has proven throughout history, however well intended the motivation, communism just doesn't work in this world with the human species; at least not on a large scale. Small communes have done okay, but nations have impoverished themselves with it.
I posted before about the ellipses inherent in the phrase, "... had all things in common..." (Acts 2:44 and Acts 4:32). Peter expounds on this principle showing the respect that the early church community had for the private possession of goods; "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" (Acts 5:4). Both before and after the possession was sold it belonged to Ananias and Sapphira. They were free to determine what become of the funds. The point where they ran afoul was in trying to deceive the community about their intentions. But the possession itself, Peter emphatically states- was "thine own."
That's not real communism. Real communism would have dictated that the possession belonged to the church and Ananias and Sapphira had no power over it at all.
Concerning collections at church, Paul says, "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." (1 Corinthians 16:2). The funds were to be collected from individuals based upon the abilities (and willingness) of those individuals to give. No real communism here.
As Sister A. and others have pointed out, the problem with modern Communism is that it is a philosophical system based wholly upon materialism - the idea that there is no Spiritual realm. We have a bone to pick with the Communists long before we even get to economic issues.
Redeemedcynic, I think you have an idealized view of socialism/communism when you say, "[Jesus] held and preached the same ideals that communism/socialism is founded on..." There have been "communistic" movements in history (the Lollards in Britain and the Peasant Revolt in Germany) that were at least partially based upon the Christian teaching. But the example of Peter in Acts 5, seems to me to be the Apostle's emphatically saying "No" to communism.
In Acts 5, they had an ideal situation for a communist revolt. Peter and the others could have easily used the circumstances to plunder Ananias and any one else with material goods. Instead, in a courtroom-like setting, Peter argues emphatically, the "possession is yours," and "it's in your own power what happens with that possession..." thus stifling any notions of communism even planting root there.
The ideal of communism is truly a noble and good ideal, in my opinion. However, it really is best to leave it in the realm of ideals as we make an appeal to one another's hearts to be open and giving. But human experience has proven throughout history, however well intended the motivation, communism just doesn't work in this world with the human species; at least not on a large scale. Small communes have done okay, but nations have impoverished themselves with it.
I agree it is best left as an ideal that can't be reached... But the thing is that the early church (and Jesus) did and taught many things that would be supportive of a socialist system...
and they didn't force everyone to give, and they didn't give everything... But maybe the form of socialism they used (where everyone gave freely and wasn't required to give everything) was better than what Marx put forth... But to say it isn't in the same vein, well, I don't see how anyone could possibly get to that conclusion...
and, yes, communist governments have been anti-religion, but the thing is that a government doesn't HAVE TO BE anti-religion to be communist... In fact, if I remember right, there are governments that are communist at the moment on earth that are religious in nature as well as being communist/socialist... I'll have to look it up to see if I can find where/who... But the point is that, again, he issue is with specific governments and people, not the ideals... The idea of socialism is not against Christianity...
Tell that to the original church... who shared everything among them...
And Paul didn't take up a collection for the Jerusalem church to help them in thier poverty after the Jerusalem council... Its actually thought of by more scholars as a pay-off to allow him to preach that the gentiles don't have to follow the law...
same "scholars" that think Jesus was the son of Mary and a roman soldier named Tiberius Pantera?
get real. that is a load of bunk and you ought to know better! Paul had to BRIBE the Apostles so he could preach?
that is wacked out man.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
same "scholars" that think Jesus was the son of Mary and a roman soldier named Tiberius Pantera?
get real. that is a load of bunk and you ought to know better! Paul had to BRIBE the Apostles so he could preach?
that is wacked out man.
While I agree with your position, I think "wacked out man" is a little strong. Many have in fact tried to make this very case.
Personally I reject the "bribe the church in Jerusalem" thesis because of Paul's words in Romans 15:25-26. He says that the Gentile churches that took up the collection did so simply because it "pleased them." They wanted to do it. In verse 27 he tells the Romans that the Gentiles are in a way spiritual "debtors" to the Jerusalem church. However in verse 31 he actually asks the Romans to pray that the saints in Jerusalem even accept the money.
It doesn't really appear to be a pro-quid-quo type of payment that occurred. Rather it seems like the Gentiles may have been using the economic distress of the Jerusalem church as an opportunity to "heap coals of fire" upon the heads of their erstwhile brethren.
While I agree with your position, I think "wacked out man" is a little strong. Many have in fact tried to make this very case.
Personally I reject the "bribe the church in Jerusalem" thesis because of Paul's words in Romans 15:25-26. He says that the Gentile churches that took up the collection did so simply because it "pleased them." They wanted to do it. In verse 27 he tells the Romans that the Gentiles are in a way spiritual "debtors" to the Jerusalem church. However in verse 31 he actually asks the Romans to pray that the saints in Jerusalem even accept the money.
It doesn't really appear to be a pro-quid-quo type of payment that occurred. Rather it seems like the Gentiles may have been using the economic distress of the Jerusalem church as an opportunity to "heap coals of fire" upon the heads of their erstwhile brethren.
Also, if you read Acts... when Paul returns from Galatia nothing is ever mentioned of this offering... However, a riot does occur because the Jerusalem church forces Paul to go to the temple to finish a Nazarite vow and the Jews riot because they think Paul took Timothy (a gentile who was not living the law at all) into the temple with him.... Which wasn't true (wonder where they got that idea from??)
The issue with what we have is that Luke never wrote anything bad... He mentions things when they are good, but ignores things when they go bad... But if you read in Paul's letters you can tell that there is a lot more tension between Paul and James (Antioch and Jerusalem) than is let on in Acts... and, in the end, Paul won... That's why we have all of Paul's writings....
Name one. lets go thru this. it just might be fun.
1. take care of the sick/widowed/orphans
2. take care of the poor/give to the poor
3. do unto others as you would have them do unto you
4. don't worry about wealth
Hybrid Mode
