| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ta" |
| Date: |
16 Aug 2004 05:12:42 PM |
| Object: |
Christianity and Private Property |
I hate to use the word "communist" with all its negative connotations,
so was Jesus against private property? Perhaps there are plenty of
verses people could reference that contradict the following (although
I really haven't a clue), but he sure sounds like a commie to me. Of
course no where does it say "thou shalt not own stuff", but I can't
imagine Jesus being a big capitalist.
"The Believers Share Their Possessions
32All 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. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.
34There 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
35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone
as he had need."
Acts 4:32-35
"The Fellowship of the Believers
42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the
fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was
filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by
the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in
common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as
he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple
courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and
sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the
people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being
saved."
Acts 2:42-47
.
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Private Property |
16 Aug 2004 11:58:46 PM |
|
|
"ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:c5c0e6e6.0408161412.4bea19f6@posting.google.com...
I hate to use the word "communist" with all its negative connotations,
so was Jesus against private property? Perhaps there are plenty of
verses people could reference that contradict the following (although
I really haven't a clue), but he sure sounds like a commie to me. Of
course no where does it say "thou shalt not own stuff", but I can't
imagine Jesus being a big capitalist.
"The Believers Share Their Possessions
Both capitalism and socialism have their own distinctions, but they also both
borrow somewhat from the ideas of Christianity. Though they each have somewhat in
common with the ideas of Christianity, let us be clear to recognize the
distinctions.
Essentially, from the perspective of the closed system of scripture, socialism is
a way of mass or group or government control of wealth; and capitalism is a way
of individual control of wealth.
http://www.christianparents.com/social2.htm
-----------------------------------
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE "FREE MARKET" AND PROFIT
A comprehensive description of the development of the western Free Market system
is impossible, but certain motifs or paradigms can be identified which capture
the essence of its history. In Max Weber's paradigm, the engine of the free
market system is predestination in the Calvinist tradition. Since works as a
means to salvation is ruled out by the Calvinist understanding of scripture, the
alternative is "ritualistic" behavior in fulfilling one's calling, even though
the individual cannot influence his election. Success in business is thus
presumed to be a sign of God's approval. Though favor in the sight of God is
based mostly on moral terms,
Above all, in practice the most important criterion is found in private
profitableness. For if that God, whose hand the Puritan sees in all the
occurrences of life, shows one of His elect a chance of profit, he must do it
with a purpose. Hence the faithful {28} Christian must follow the call by taking
advantage of the opportunity.12
Another paradigm that helps understand the free market idea is the Troeltschian
concept of the church and sect. The Church is seen as the religious force which
attempts to bring the religious presence into society "from above," while the
Sect impulse works "from below." The Sect type of religious movement therefore
would be concerned about "primitive Christianity" which would include communalism
and mutual sharing, a downgrading of worldly success, and an emphasis on the
eschatological community. The Church type would support and integrate the
individual as a constituent of the larger social monopoly, with an hierarchical
"ordering life," with salvation and the ethical life commensurately
individualistic.13
http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?420
A Calvinist Defense of Anarcho-Capitalism
http://members.aol.com/VFTfiles/thesis/summary01.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/BUSINESS/FR91401.htm
http://www.christis.org.uk/archive/issue53/capitalism.php
http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/ethics/moralbasis.html
--------------------------------------
Christian socialism, term used in Great Britain and the United States for a kind
of socialism growing out of the clash between Christian ideals and the effects of
competitive business. In Europe, it usually refers to a party or trade union
directed by religious leaders in contrast to socialist unions and parties. The
movement was begun in England in 1848, after the failure of Chartism. Influenced
by Carlyle, Southey, Coleridge, and the Fourierists, rather than by Marx, such
men as John Ludlow, Frederick Denison Maurice, and Charles Kingsley sought to
encourage the laboring masses and the church to cooperate against capitalism.
They published periodicals and tracts, promoted workingmen's associations,
founded (1854) a workingmen's college, and helped achieve some general reforms.
Though their experiments in producers' cooperation failed, their traditions were
carried on by the Fabian Society, by adherents of guild socialism, and by several
Roman Catholic groups. The movement in the United States was organized with the
formation (1889) of the Society of Christian Socialists, although there had been
earlier activity by Washington Gladden, Richard Theodore Ely, and others.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0812105.html
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Christian%20socialism
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Liberation%20theology
32All 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. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.
34There 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
35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone
as he had need."
Acts 4:32-35
"The Fellowship of the Believers
42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the
fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was
filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by
the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in
common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as
he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple
courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and
sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the
people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being
saved."
Acts 2:42-47
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Glen" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Private Property - he approved of slavery anyway |
16 Aug 2004 06:31:46 PM |
|
|
Check out the new testament and you'll see that Jebus not only didn't
disapprove of slavery but told slaves to be obedient honest and diligent
when serving their masters. After that - who cares if he was communist or
not. Check out Luke 7:1-10, Matthew 18:21-35, Luke 12:42-48 Ephesians 6:5-8
and on and on. If Jesus had been born rich you can be sure he would have
owned slaves and used them like the others in power. Disgusting isn't it?
"ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:c5c0e6e6.0408161412.4bea19f6@posting.google.com...
I hate to use the word "communist" with all its negative connotations,
so was Jesus against private property? Perhaps there are plenty of
verses people could reference that contradict the following (although
I really haven't a clue), but he sure sounds like a commie to me. Of
course no where does it say "thou shalt not own stuff", but I can't
imagine Jesus being a big capitalist.
"The Believers Share Their Possessions
32All 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. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.
34There 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
35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone
as he had need."
Acts 4:32-35
"The Fellowship of the Believers
42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the
fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was
filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by
the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in
common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as
he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple
courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and
sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the
people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being
saved."
Acts 2:42-47
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004
.
|
|
|
| User: "alt" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Private Property - he approved of slavery anyway |
17 Aug 2004 11:31:07 AM |
|
|
Glen wrote:
Check out the new testament and you'll see that Jebus not only didn't
disapprove of slavery but told slaves to be obedient honest and diligent
when serving their masters. After that - who cares if he was communist or
not. Check out Luke 7:1-10, Matthew 18:21-35, Luke 12:42-48 Ephesians
6:5-8
and on and on. If Jesus had been born rich you can be sure he would have
owned slaves and used them like the others in power. Disgusting isn't it?
Yes. Slavery is disgusting.
Jesus didn't tell slaves to be obedient and diligent because he approved of
slavery (he came to set the captives free, so I don't believe that he did
approve), but he wanted these people to express their faith by being the
best slaves they could be. (And besides, a good slave doesn't get beaten.)
God wants us to be the best. He wants Christians to stand out as different
from the world. The Christian life is the Christian's witness to the world
of the life changing power of God.
--
Donovan Hill
Canadian, Linux User, All around nice guy!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Private Property - he approved of slavery anyway |
17 Aug 2004 11:23:20 PM |
|
|
<re-inserted newsgroups you trimmed - what's a matter? Too chicken for a little
feedback?>
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:31:07 GMT in alt.atheism, alt <spamtrap@lazyeyez.net>
defied the status quo and scrawled upon the toilet stall:
Glen wrote:
Check out the new testament and you'll see that Jebus not only didn't
disapprove of slavery but told slaves to be obedient honest and diligent
when serving their masters. After that - who cares if he was communist or
not. Check out Luke 7:1-10, Matthew 18:21-35, Luke 12:42-48 Ephesians
6:5-8
and on and on. If Jesus had been born rich you can be sure he would have
owned slaves and used them like the others in power. Disgusting isn't it?
Yes. Slavery is disgusting.
Jesus didn't tell slaves to be obedient and diligent because he approved of
slavery (he came to set the captives free, so I don't believe that he did
approve), but he wanted these people to express their faith by being the
best slaves they could be. (And besides, a good slave doesn't get beaten.)
If he was willing to trash the merchants in the temple as "vipers" - some of the
more powerful individuals from the city - and taunt all the prevailing power
structures of his time to the point where they publicly executed him, what on
Earth do you think could stop him from voicing objection to slavery - IF HE
HONESTLY THOUGHT IT WAS WRONG? Why would he stay silent? He was allegedly on
this big ol' "man of might" quest to save the world and was willingly giving
away his own life already. What would he have had to lose to speak even just
one tiny little syllable against slavery, even from the cross where they
_definitely_ couldn't have hurt him any more? Apparently it's more important to
tell a beggar that he's going to sit on your right hand soon than to tell people
that it's wrong to own each other.
His silence on the matter implicates his complete approval.
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glen" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Private Property - he approved of slavery anyway |
17 Aug 2004 10:41:20 PM |
|
|
Thanks Unca Dollar!! Couldn't have asked for a better support in this
thread. Good food for thought!!
"Uncle Dollar Bill" <UncleDollarBill@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:4133d810.90934437@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
<re-inserted newsgroups you trimmed - what's a matter? Too chicken for a
little
feedback?>
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:31:07 GMT in alt.atheism, alt
<spamtrap@lazyeyez.net>
defied the status quo and scrawled upon the toilet stall:
Glen wrote:
Check out the new testament and you'll see that Jebus not only didn't
disapprove of slavery but told slaves to be obedient honest and
diligent
when serving their masters. After that - who cares if he was communist
or
not. Check out Luke 7:1-10, Matthew 18:21-35, Luke 12:42-48 Ephesians
6:5-8
and on and on. If Jesus had been born rich you can be sure he would
have
owned slaves and used them like the others in power. Disgusting isn't
it?
Yes. Slavery is disgusting.
Jesus didn't tell slaves to be obedient and diligent because he approved
of
slavery (he came to set the captives free, so I don't believe that he did
approve), but he wanted these people to express their faith by being the
best slaves they could be. (And besides, a good slave doesn't get
beaten.)
If he was willing to trash the merchants in the temple as "vipers" - some
of the
more powerful individuals from the city - and taunt all the prevailing
power
structures of his time to the point where they publicly executed him, what
on
Earth do you think could stop him from voicing objection to slavery - IF
HE
HONESTLY THOUGHT IT WAS WRONG? Why would he stay silent? He was
allegedly on
this big ol' "man of might" quest to save the world and was willingly
giving
away his own life already. What would he have had to lose to speak even
just
one tiny little syllable against slavery, even from the cross where they
_definitely_ couldn't have hurt him any more? Apparently it's more
important to
tell a beggar that he's going to sit on your right hand soon than to tell
people
that it's wrong to own each other.
His silence on the matter implicates his complete approval.
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Bramscher" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Private Property - he approved of slavery anyway |
19 Aug 2004 01:19:01 PM |
|
|
Uncle Dollar Bill wrote:
<re-inserted newsgroups you trimmed - what's a matter? Too chicken for a little
feedback?>
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:31:07 GMT in alt.atheism, alt <spamtrap@lazyeyez.net>
defied the status quo and scrawled upon the toilet stall:
Glen wrote:
Check out the new testament and you'll see that Jebus not only didn't
disapprove of slavery but told slaves to be obedient honest and diligent
when serving their masters. After that - who cares if he was communist or
not. Check out Luke 7:1-10, Matthew 18:21-35, Luke 12:42-48 Ephesians
6:5-8
and on and on. If Jesus had been born rich you can be sure he would have
owned slaves and used them like the others in power. Disgusting isn't it?
Yes. Slavery is disgusting.
Jesus didn't tell slaves to be obedient and diligent because he approved of
slavery (he came to set the captives free, so I don't believe that he did
approve), but he wanted these people to express their faith by being the
best slaves they could be. (And besides, a good slave doesn't get beaten.)
If he was willing to trash the merchants in the temple as "vipers" - some of the
more powerful individuals from the city - and taunt all the prevailing power
structures of his time to the point where they publicly executed him, what on
Earth do you think could stop him from voicing objection to slavery - IF HE
HONESTLY THOUGHT IT WAS WRONG? Why would he stay silent? He was allegedly on
this big ol' "man of might" quest to save the world and was willingly giving
away his own life already. What would he have had to lose to speak even just
one tiny little syllable against slavery, even from the cross where they
_definitely_ couldn't have hurt him any more? Apparently it's more important to
tell a beggar that he's going to sit on your right hand soon than to tell people
that it's wrong to own each other.
His silence on the matter implicates his complete approval.
More problematic is when you view the robbers who were executed along
with Christ. One seems to be wrong in asking Jesus to save them, the
other seems to have earned a spot in Heaven when he says the robbers are
being punished "justly" (a pro-capital punishment argument even amidst
the crucifixion?) and asks Jesus to remember him.
Note that it wasn't the *behavior* of one of the robbers that saved him,
but his professed belief.
This is the great difference between Christianity and most other
religions. A generous pacifist atheist is liable to burn in Hades,
whereas a warmonger or greedmonger who professes his Christian faith is
let off the hook in a big way. He can deny his misconduct
categorically. Or if that fails he can admit he's just a sinner and God
will forgive him in the end.
The root problem is that worship-based religions (believe-obey) are
radically different from the emulation systems (Buddhism, the Path).
Christ is a figure to merely worship (from a distance of 2,000 years)
for many people, not to emulate. Christ wasn't a Christian himself.
That is, he wasn't self-worshipping. Whereas one can look at the
Eightfold Path in Buddhism and rather than worshipping a statue of the
Buddha one focuses on emulation on conduct.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "NeoSadist" |
|
| Title: Re: Christianity and Private Property |
16 Aug 2004 05:23:46 PM |
|
|
ta wrote:
I hate to use the word "communist" with all its negative connotations,
so was Jesus against private property?
It was never about Jesus making a political statement, more than it was a
religious statement. Jesus wanted us to remember that reaching the lost
comes first, not our personal property.
Perhaps there are plenty of
verses people could reference that contradict the following (although
I really haven't a clue), but he sure sounds like a commie to me. Of
course no where does it say "thou shalt not own stuff", but I can't
imagine Jesus being a big capitalist.
"The Believers Share Their Possessions
32All 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. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.
34There 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
35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone
as he had need."
Acts 4:32-35
"The Fellowship of the Believers
42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the
fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was
filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by
the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in
common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as
he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple
courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and
sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the
people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being
saved."
Acts 2:42-47
--
BOFH excuse #107:
The keyboard isn't plugged in
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
