We can live above sin with the Power of the Holy Ghost. I have had many major victories over sins that I do not do "no more." I am still a work in progress, but I make progress. That is the point.
I believe that the woman never committed adultry again..what do ya think?
Nevertheless, Jesus was NOT a commie or a Socialist....
Again...for the real record...lest ye forget:
If personal property is something Jesus taught against...what have we to give? And those that receive....how can they take possession?
even if the woman didn't commit adultery, she still sinned elsewhere. That is the point. Jesus didn't say "don't commit adultery anymore" he said "go and sin no more", something that no one is capable of doing (except Jesus)...
Again, you guys are missing the point, though...
Jesus said many things that are socialist ideals... giving to the poor, taking care of the poor... taking care of those who can't take care of themselves... All things that are a part of socialism... Jesus was much closer to Marx as far as social action than he was to anyone that lived in his day and age...
From each according to his ability to each according to his need seems like great wisdom, but who decides what the need is? The one receiving or the one giving?
RevDWW you just worry about making certain that your check is made payable to me!!!
I'll worry about the need, thank very much for your kind contributions.
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...
RevDWW you just worry about making certain that your check is made payable to me!!!
I'll worry about the need, thank very much for your kind contributions.
Therein lies the problem with communism.
But if it's redistribution of wealth, lots are for it as long as they are in on the 'distribution' and not part of the 're'........:k illinme
__________________
Psa 119:165 (KJV) 165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.
"Do not believe everthing you read on the internet" - Abe Lincoln
I already dealt with this but Jesus was most certainly NOT a communist! of any kind. how obsurd.
Taking care of sick people is not a communist ideal. It is a christian ideal. feeding the poor isnt a communist ideal it is a christian one.
AND the Jerusalem church fell into massive poverty one can certainly assume it was because of their practice of holding everything in common.
AND
there is NO EVIDENCE that any other church besides the Jerusalem church practiced communal living.
NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE.
Communism is OF THE DEVIL, at its best it is a counterfit meant to replace faith in God, for faith in a state.
there is NO single thing within the "theory of communism" that has any redeaming value.
actually, they're both socialist and Christian ideals...
and communism is not of the devil other than the fact that the governments who have tried to put it in place have been evil and lied to the people telling them they were doing one thing when they didn't really do it at all... Russia was never really communist, they were ALWAYS a dictatorship that pretended to be communist...
which is part of my point... Sis. Alvear's problem is with the specific governemtns, but those governments never truely tried to reach the ideals... Russia expelled Trotsky (I think that was his name) because he wanted to keep trying to become a socialist state, whereas Lenin and Stalin wanted to keep taking everything for themselves... It went from egalitarian to totalitarian the moment that they took power... They lied to the people using socialism so they could take power...
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....
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....
You're correct about Paul and James - and so many others in the NT church as well. Sometimes today people look at the disagreements within the church and get discouraged. They then seem to pine for the "days of pristine Apostolic unity..." Reading the Bible closely reveals that those days probably never happened. At one point two of the most outstanding preachers (Paul and Barnabas) had such a grudge between them that they couldn't even be on the platform at General Conference at the same time.
I think Sister A.'s main concerns about Communism may be from her own experience in the 3rd World where Revolutionary Communism and similar movements have really taken a toll on the people. *Notice I have capitalized "Communism" here. This is the materialism based philosophy of Marx and Lenin.
I think you are describing the older "communism" (I'll use the lower case here) for the distribution of wealth and resources within a local community. What you are describing is a system that has in fact been popular among many Christian groups throughout history. What Sister A. describes is a late Victorian/20th Century revolutionary program that led to the enslavement and slaughter of 10's of millions of people.
Linear Mode
