1st...i understand what the early 1st century believers did & why they did them. I personally dont see where we are suppose to be the 1st century believers...we are suppose to be believers today...and that is different. the "society" and "church society" of the 1st century could be found in 1 major city in the U.S. today. They dealt in 10's/100's/1000's...we deal in 100,000's, millions, billions. big difference.
I’m not sure of your point. The body of Christ is the body of Christ. We have a way about us in every generation. We don’t have to do things exactly like the first century church. However, we are wise if we employ the principles those closest to Jesus and the Apostles lived out.
Quote:
2nd...if all the law & the prophets hang on those 2...then i'll focus on keeping & fulfilling the 2. whenever men start "defining" what Christ said...we usually get a mess(religion/cults/etc..). Yes I do believe that I can say "Love God with everything you are and love your neighbor as your own flesh"...without defining for people what to do & what not to do. Why stop at the 10 laws? Why not include the entire 613 laws?
I believe that in practice that’s part of the problem with Christianity. How to love God and how to love our neighbor isn’t defined. For example, I knew a guy in the military who did some “messing around” yet he claimed he loved his wife. Now, when I asked him about it he said, “Sure I love my wife. And what she doesn’t know won’t hurt her.” He intended to keep his “messing around” a secret if he had to lie to do it. He saw this as “loving”. While using women for pleasure he claimed he care about them but didn’t want a relationship. In his mind he was loving his wife and caring for this women, all the while he was committing adultery, fornicating, and lying about it. Is that loving your neighbor? Absolutely not. Adultery is defined clearly in God’s Law and loving one’s neighbor precludes the possibility of committing adultery. Lying is defined as sin in God’s Law and loving one’s neighbor precludes the possibility of lying to them. You can’t just love someone any ol’ way… you have to define the Christian way to love a person.
I know of a man who says he loves God with all his heart… but he’s Catholic. He prays to statues of saints and even bows before them. In his mind he’s loving God with all his heart. However, idolatry is defined as sin by the Law of God and one cannot claim to love God if they are worshipping idols. Nor can one blaspheme the name of the Lord and claim to love him. Again, the way we love God has to be defined. You can’t just love God any ol’ way you want.
The Ten Commandments were placed in the ark and traveled with the tabernacle. We are told that this tabernacle was an earthly replica of a Heavenly reality. The Ten Commandments are the Law of God and has been in the Heavenly Holy of Holies since before creation. These embody what God expects of mankind according to God’s own holiness. Obeying the Ten Commandments can’t SAVE you, only a relationship with Christ can Save you. But disobedience to God’s Laws and will can cause you to be lost.
The remainder of the Law is known as the Law of Moses. These are cultural, social, and ceremonial laws designed to keep Israel separate from the world. These laws are specifically for the nation of Israel… while the Ten Commandments are universal. So all one must do is attain and maintain a relationship with Jesus. This will involve falling in love with God so much that you desire nothing more than to obey him.
Quote:
3rd...i do not have the insight to define for anyone what it means for them to love God with all they are...that is for them & Him. I believe if we allow ourselves to be led by the Holy Spirit...He will make sure we have plenty of oppurtunity to demonstrate.
The Spirit should lead us into obedience knowing that it was through the power of the Spirit that God’s Law was written upon our hearts.
Quote:
If I give Him ALL....then I don't have anything left to give to religious foundations/organizations (that will probably take a fee).
If you feel led not to give, follow that leading. But many efforts could use your support to help so many.
No. You sounded like a Distributist. Government's role should be to protect life, liberty, and property. How can government be said to protect liberty if we are slaves to corporate America with it's unchecked power and enfluence? Consider these laws that our Founding Fathers and the states supported...
* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
Think about this... our founders and early Americans understood that we have two enemies. Socialists who would give the state total power over wealth distribution and the means of production and total Capitalism wherein corporate powers and banks control wealth and the means of production. Distributists understand these threats to human liberty.
The bolded bit is a one sentance definition of the constitutional limits placed on the Government.
With the founders corporate interests didn't have the power that came with industrialization. And the people who inherited the founder's jobs figured out they could get in on some of the perks... and so here we all are.
I swing the direction of libertarianism. I used to be constitutionalist, whose platform is close to the libertarian one only with a scary religious angle that I got real uncomfortable with.
It all really is as simple as... "the more people who have more, the better it is for everyone. And when more people have more, things all these healthcare woes and poverty would start to go away.
But, the folks who hold the power hold it tight, and they aren't about to let it go. And when 90% of the world's wealth is held in a death grip by 10% (or less...that is probably a generous percentage) of the population, nothing will happen beyond the 90% or more just having tougher times having to do more with less and it will never change.
The bolded bit is a one sentance definition of the constitutional limits placed on the Government.
With the founders corporate interests didn't have the power that came with industrialization. And the people who inherited the founder's jobs figured out they could get in on some of the perks... and so here we all are.
I swing the direction of libertarianism. I used to be constitutionalist, whose platform is close to the libertarian one only with a scary religious angle that I got real uncomfortable with.
It all really is as simple as... "the more people who have more, the better it is for everyone. And when more people have more, things all these healthcare woes and poverty would start to go away.
But, the folks who hold the power hold it tight, and they aren't about to let it go. And when 90% of the world's wealth is held in a death grip by 10% (or less...that is probably a generous percentage) of the population, nothing will happen beyond the 90% or more just having tougher times having to do more with less and it will never change.
I see this kind of death grip on power and resources a threat to not only liberty but democracy. You see, if so few hold all the power and resources the masses and masses of people suffer, they will eventually resort to using democracy to plunder the wealthy land barons and distribute their wealth... enter socialism. In order to maintain their death grip on power and resources the wealthy land barons have no other choice but to undermine democracy... enter facism.
I fear that one day corporate interests will resort to the unthinkable to secure their power and wealth. It's disturbing.
No. You sounded like a Distributist. Government's role should be to protect life, liberty, and property. How can government be said to protect liberty if we are slaves to corporate America with it's unchecked power and enfluence? Consider these laws that our Founding Fathers and the states supported...
* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Do you even know what this means? This was and remains the law. A corporation cannot do things it was not chartered to do. If the charter says that the corp exists to make donuts, and they sell T-shirts well they have violated the charter.
* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Is there a statute for this? Can you give an example?
* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
I don't know if this was ever the case, but if so it is stupid. Individuals are responsible for criminal activities, not owners. So If a Pizza delivery guy shoots and kills a customer because he didn't tip him you would punish the owner?
* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
Can you cite the statute for this?
Think about this... our founders and early Americans understood that we have two enemies. Socialists who would give the state total power over wealth distribution and the means of production and total Capitalism wherein corporate powers and banks control wealth and the means of production. Distributists understand these threats to human liberty.
Do you have any idea what you posted?
What you just posted is comical.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
Do you even know what this means? This was and remains the law. A corporation cannot do things it was not chartered to do. If the charter says that the corp exists to make donuts, and they sell T-shirts well they have violated the charter.
c'mon buddy... you mean you never saw a dunkin' donuts t-shirt? Talk about corporate death grips... in a three mile stretch of West Main in Norwich CT there are FOUR dunkin donuts.... no dandy, no krispy kreme, no donut hole. Just dunkin. 4 of them in a three mile stretch of the same road. At least they alternate sides of the street...
Corporate abuse at it's extreme. I needed that laugh....
c'mon buddy... you mean you never saw a dunkin' donuts t-shirt? Talk about corporate death grips... in a three mile stretch of West Main in Norwich CT there are FOUR dunkin donuts.... no dandy, no krispy kreme, no donut hole. Just dunkin. 4 of them in a three mile stretch of the same road. At least they alternate sides of the street...
Corporate abuse at it's extreme. I needed that laugh....
THEY MUST BE STOPPED!!! After I pick up a dozen glazed and a cup of coffee.
You should go back and study the caselaw history behind the SCOTUS rulings regarding corporate personhood. Do your homework and get back to me.
My friend you have not done yours.
First, case law of the SCOTUS does not tell you anything about what the founders believed.
Second, I have studied this in law school under the topic of Corporations and it is regulated by statute.
So after you do your homework rather than quoting from some liberal who doesn't have a clue (like Obama blew it in his state of the union so you blew it here). You do not understand corporate law.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
"A statement of the corporation's purpose must be included in the charter. A corporation may be formed to engage in any lawful activity, and the statement of purpose may be as broad as "to engage in any lawful activity." If the corporation is organized for a limited purpose, the corporate name must not state or imply otherwise."
Statutory law PRIOR to the SCOTUS decision.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
I needed that laugh....
Linear Mode
