The Bible; The Unabridged-Version

[AtheismIsReality]

I don't hate at all that a group of people volunteered to live collectively. Being pro-freedom means that people can be free to give their possessions to each other or free to keep them. That really is not at all like communism is it? Communism involves little choice to live under that government system and individual people give up property rights. In the early church that chose to live that way people retained property rights. Do not confuse a commune with communism.

All the socialist of this country can ascribe to their views as much as they want and they can all volunteer to be taxed highly for the good of others. What they should not do is expect that others will want to have their possessions taken away from them for the same goals. Do you want health insurance for those who do not have it? Then give of your possessions so that the uninsured can have insurance but do not claim to be a champion of freedom while demanding that others must give up their personal property. Personal property is still a basic civil right under our constitution.

We aren't talking about a group of abstract people here.

We're talking about Jesus' Apostles and the community that formed around him.

You can go practice whatever government you want, but if you want to talk about the Christianity, consult the source material.

 

[PLC1]

Actually, the disciples were more like a hippie commune than a socialist society. The only thing missing were the hippie chicks, other than maybe Mary Magdalene. Where were the females? Were they a part of the commune that just wasn't discussed, or was it a male only, no girls allowed kind of club?

Personally, I would never join a commune that didn't include hippie chicks. What's the point?

 

[Dr.Who]

We aren't talking about a group of abstract people here.

We're talking about Jesus' Apostles and the community that formed around him.

You can go practice whatever government you want, but if you want to talk about the Christianity, consult the source material.

Actually we are talking about a real group of people that lived in a commune, a real group of people that lived under communism, a real group of people that advance communistic ideals here in the states, and we are making comparisons.

The disciples did not live as a commune but as followers of a religious leader who had complete authority to whatever extent he exercised it. The disciples traveled as a group before Jesus died and did not form a commune. I don't know if any of them lived in the community that formed the church of Jerusalem. Peter and John were around and perhaps they both lived there, Peter did.

The community that lived in the church of Jerusalem did choose to live in commune-like ways. But it was only one Christian community out of many. Christianity can exist in multiple political systems including ones that run like a commune. I don't now if any more of the disciples lived there. But some of the apostles did - Barnabus as an example.

Did the church at Jerusalem allow private property? Lets look at the source material:

Acts 5:3

3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."

 

[Dr.Who]

Actually, the disciples were more like a hippie commune than a socialist society. The only thing missing were the hippie chicks, other than maybe Mary Magdalene. Where were the females? Were they a part of the commune that just wasn't discussed, or was it a male only, no girls allowed kind of club?

Personally, I would never join a commune that didn't include hippie chicks. What's the point?

When we talk about the group that traveled with Jesus many woman traveled with the group.

When we are talking about the church at Jerusalem that many think was communistic they all worshiped as a group but since many owned property and land before joining and only sold it as the need arose they must have continued to live on the land in their own separate homes.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

Actually we are talking about a real group of people that lived in a commune, a real group of people that lived under communism, a real group of people that advance communistic ideals here in the states, and we are making comparisons.

The disciples did not live as a commune but as followers of a religious leader who had complete authority to whatever extent he exercised it. The disciples traveled as a group before Jesus died and did not form a commune. I don't know if any of them lived in the community that formed the church of Jerusalem. Peter and John were around and perhaps they both lived there, Peter did.

The community that lived in the church of Jerusalem did choose to live in commune-like ways. But it was only one Christian community out of many. Christianity can exist in multiple political systems including ones that run like a commune. I don't now if any more of the disciples lived there. But some of the apostles did - Barnabus as an example.

Did the church at Jerusalem allow private property? Lets look at the source material:

Acts 5:3

3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."

Act 4:32-35

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

This is ACTS. There are no other Christian communities.

 

[Dr.Who]

Act 4:32-35

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.



This is ACTS. There are no other Christian communities.

No one claimed they had personal possession but they were well aware that they did have personal possessions, their leader Peter was well aware that they had personal possessions, and the author of the book said it right there in the section you quoted that some of them owned lands.

The point of the story is not that they lived like communists but that they did not value their wealth and individuals shared with others.

Every one of the early churches spread out across the region was a community. The book of Revelations lists 12.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

No one claimed they had personal possession but they were well aware that they did have personal possessions, their leader Peter was well aware that they had personal possessions, and the author of the book said it right there in the section you quoted that some of them owned lands.

The point of the story is not that they lived like communists but that they did not value their wealth and individuals shared with others.

Every one of the early churches spread out across the region was a community. The book of Revelations lists 12.

You're cofusing the spirit of the community with the legality of selling property.

It's alright. I get it. People have much, and they are dismayed to have to part with it.

 

[Dr.Who]

You're cofusing the spirit of the community with the legality of selling property.

It's alright. I get it. People have much, and they are dismayed to have to part with it.

I think you have used exactly the right words, though I am not sure you understand the situation.

Yes the spirit of the community was one in which they shared all possessions. But they all owned their own property.

They were not acting like communist because they did not think that no one owned any property.

They were acting like kind capitalists because they recognized that everyone owned what they owned but people shared generously.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

I think you have used exactly the right words, though I am not sure you understand the situation.

Yes the spirit of the community was one in which they shared all possessions. But they all owned their own property.

They were not acting like communist because they did not think that no one owned any property.

They were acting like kind capitalists because they recognized that everyone owned what they owned but people shared generously.

It says they shared everything they had. How is that capitalistic? Capitalism is about charging rent or selling what you own to others to make profit.

 

[Dr.Who]

It says they shared everything they had. How is that capitalistic? Capitalism is about charging rent or selling what you own to others to make profit.

Capitalists are permitted to have whatever motive they want, benevolent or malevolent. They are also permitted to have make whatever profit they want even if it is zero.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

Capitalists are permitted to have whatever motive they want, benevolent or malevolent. They are also permitted to have make whatever profit they want even if it is zero.

Capitalism and charity are two different things.

 

[Dr.Who]

Capitalism and charity are two different things.

Capitalist are free to engage in charity. They do it all the time.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

Capitalist are free to engage in charity. They do it all the time.

Charity does not equal capitalism. Does it?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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.

 

[AtheismIsReality]

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.

He should have summed it up with - you can't serve two masters.