Is This Avatar More Agreeable?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

what about when the church becomes the government or fights for changes in the government. what is that government supposed to look like?

Whose church? Church is church. Government is government.

One is a religion and the other is not. You're confused as to what "The church" is.

[Praxeas]

BTW you are mistaken about Socialism being about helping the poor. It's really about making EVERYONE equally poor except for a very few powerful people.

[AmericanAngel]

Praxeas!!!!

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

BTW you are mistaken about Socialism being about helping the poor. It's really about making EVERYONE equally poor except for a very few powerful people.

That's why I say that those who push it must have aspirations to become one of the elite.

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Whose church? Church is church. Government is government.

One is a religion and the other is not. You're confused as to what "The church" is.

the point i'm trying to make is, if the church should be concerned for the welfare of the poor and seek to change the structures of society that keep the poor oppressed, what kind of social change would you seek to implement?

it is hard to imagine the need for change in an affluent society but if you lived in a poor area or in africa or latin america where the context is different. i think you would have a different point of view.

examples of church programs like nursery, preschool, tutoring, drug rehab, voter registration, demonstrating for worker rights to unionize etc these are things the church should be doing to better the life of the kingdom and if the church should come to power it should advocate for those policies which most help the poor.

if you were in charge of a poor country, what policies would you advocate?

[trialedbyfire]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,


nowhere past acts 8????? what kind of argument is that???? i suppose we can throw out the gospels and the entire old testament also. what a farce and a phony. is socialism in the bible or not? yes or no?

First of all let me blow this silly argument out of the water real quickly.

No, socialism is not in the Bible, at all.

There are two primary aspects to the verse I want YOU yes YOU to notice, because I can't stand this verse being RIPPED out of context to fit political agendas.

Firstly, and most importantly, this was NOT the formation of a socialist government. This was a CHRISTIAN SECT deciding to give up their goods and live together giving themselves up totally to the ministry of God and the Apostles Doctrine. They shared everything in common simply because their life was now totally dedicated to Christ and to his work. These were the FIRST 3,000 who were saved and added to the church in scripture. And YES here it is there is no other group of individuals in scripture who we see doing this outside of these original 3,000. Paul even solicited offerings from individuals in the church of Corinth. In order to give offering you have to have something to offer, the Corinthian church was not operating this way in 1 Corinthians 16.

Secondly if you want to do what the 3,000 did go right ahead. Start a church sell all of your property and live in a commune. Don't pretend these were political activists for communist living because that is not what they were. They did not propagate sharing things in common with thieves, murderers, robbers, people who don't pay taxes, people who rape, etc. They were saints, every one of them were saved and worked to build the ministry. True saints give their all for the benefit and well-being of the church and the building of the ministry. You cannot run a government the way 3,000 Holy Ghost filled blood washed saints ran ONE church thousands of years ago. That would be insane.

You have again torn the scriptures out of context to support your agenda.

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

individuals in a secular government could be agents in the kingdom of god bringing justice, salvation and wholeness in the here and now, not the afterlife.

You have absolutely NO scripture to back that up.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

the point i'm trying to make is, if the church should be concerned for the welfare of the poor and seek to change the structures of society that keep the poor oppressed, what kind of social change would you seek to implement?

it is hard to imagine the need for change in an affluent society but if you lived in a poor area or in africa or latin america where the context is different. i think you would have a different point of view.

examples of church programs like nursery, preschool, tutoring, drug rehab, voter registration, demonstrating for worker rights to unionize etc these are things the church should be doing to better the life of the kingdom and if the church should come to power it should advocate for those policies which most help the poor.

if you were in charge of a poor country, what policies would you advocate?

The church, or Christians, should help the poor, not engage in revolutions. The church should not be in charge of governments

The church changes through spiritual means not political activism. Vote your conscious but don't confuse what the church is

[trialedbyfire]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

the point i'm trying to make is, if the church should be concerned for the welfare of the poor and seek to change the structures of society that keep the poor oppressed, what kind of social change would you seek to implement?

We were NEVER told to change the structure of society. We were given the charge the Apostles were given

"And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they[b] will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”" Mark 16:15-18

The christian charge is to the salvation of souls. It has been and always will be. Also, you are as much "oppressed" in the United States as you want to think you are. Giving an "oppressive" government more money out of people's taxes does not solve "oppression". Government spending doesn't solve "oppression". I heard a story a couple days ago that absolutely blew my mind but barely surprised me. In California, the state that just voted in all those new state taxes, the San Francisco legislature passes a bill approving state funded sex change procedures for San Francisco transsexuals. My point? You can take who ever's money you want and lead a "war against the evil rich untaxed upper class" but it will mean nothing. Government doesn't need money to work, it needs people who aren't hooked on radical agendas who will keep their grubby little hands off public life and stick to enforcing the law and ensuring civil liberties are protected.

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

examples of church programs like nursery, preschool, tutoring, drug rehab, voter registration, demonstrating for worker rights to unionize etc these are things the church should be doing to better the life of the kingdom and if the church should come to power it should advocate for those policies which most help the poor.

WE are involved in these things ALL the time as THE church. And we do so volunteering OUR money that WE worked for. I can't GIVE my MONEY to the POOR if the GOVERNMENT is TAKING it and USING it to RUN their own failed godless public schools, planned parenting, bailouts, TARP, transsexual sex changes, etc. Am I making any sense?

And no liberal policies do not benefit the poor, I know this first hand. The Democratic Party cares as much about poor people as I care about funding sex changes ... none.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

the point i'm trying to make is, if the church should be concerned for the welfare of the poor and seek to change the structures of society that keep the poor oppressed, what kind of social change would you seek to implement?

if you were in charge of a poor country, what policies would you advocate?

First of all, I would slash corporate taxes to ZERO in order to attract businesses. This would create jobs. Secondly, I would begin phasing out taxes on income, adopting instead an excise tax, and modest tariffs. Thirdly, I'd phase out socialism which always creates poverty.

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The church, or Christians, should help the poor, not engage in revolutions. The church should not be in charge of governments

The church changes through spiritual means not political activism. Vote your conscious but don't confuse what the church is

the question is how do you define the salvation that christ brings. is it only spiritual salvation or both spiritual and physical. god liberated the children of israel from physical oppression. has god changed and is now only concerned with spiritual salvation? where in the bible says we should not advocate for social justice? there are plenty of examples in the prophets about the poor and oppressed.

Psalm 12:5
For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.

1 Samuel 2:8
He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.

Psalm 146:7
Which executeth judgment for the oppressed: which giveth food to the hungry. The LORD looseth the prisoners:

is this spiritual salvation only?