<<"but be transformed by the renewing of your mind..."

I also question whether this is a 'conservative' ethic. >>

These are human concepts that span political spectrums. But you see, Dan does not see his liberal American bretheren as human. Hence his dehuminization of Obama.

"This passage speaks nothing of God's view about mind OVER heart. You just googled a "mind" passage..... that bears no relevance on your prior statement.

So Dan, are you NOT going to address your "2 to 1" distortion?"

Actually sherlock, I have the passage committed to memory, any other guesses?

James: Christian communists hold that this passage explicitly shows how communism - that is, the sharing of all wealth - was considered so central to early Christianity"

as you know as well as anyone, the bible has been used to justify a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that the bible endorses those things. The problem is most people have only surface read the bible or not at all and so they are easily decieved by preachers, tele-evangelists and atheist beleivers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James: Is that what you wanted to point out to me Dan?

God despises those who would refuse to share their wealth so much, that after Peter admonishes them for their selfishness he slays them both?"

I think your reading skills are better than you are letting on. But since our presupposition often cloud our ability to reason, let me spell it out. Annanias and Saphira were killed for LYING TO THE HOLY SPIRIT. Go back and read one more time.

"I 'checked them out', and it seems to me like Ananias and Saphira is a biblical endorsement of collective ownership."

It is a biblical endorsement of truth telling, especially as it relates to the things of God. They chose of their own free will to see *some* property and give the proceeds to the church. What they did was sell the property, hold back some of the money (their perogative since it was their property), and then give the rest to the church while *claimng* to have give all of it to the church.

Now here is your chance to admit that the dumb flat earth creationist bible thumper is right, and you the intelligent progressive atheist, is wrong. Will James be the man or no?

James: "This is a real stretch here Dan. How can there possibly be theft in a society without private possessions? "

Dan: LOL, which came first James, the chicken or the egg.

James: Well I would say if you believe in evolution, then obviously the egg came first.

Worms, insects, and reptiles all lay eggs, these are all simpler life forms than birds, and avians (birds) evolved from reptiles. A chicken is an avian, so obviously the egg came first.

If you believe in creationism, I suppose the chicken would have come first. The Genesis account states that all animals were created in their present form. It doesn't state whether the animals were created as babies first and grew to be adults, or created in adult form, although we certainly know that Adam and Eve were sexually mature so they were at least adolescents and not infants when they were created.

Dan: "You are too funny. The worlds only communist states provide my "misconception". I just need to look to "stone age" communism to see how it was supposed to work. Give me a break."

I'm not sure whether you are aware of this or not, but in Marxist philosophy the terms 'Communist' and 'State' are diametrically opposed. Communism is only possible when there is no more state, no more government. There is no such thing as a 'communist state'.

Even the Soviet Union did not consider themselves to be a Communist state. They thought of themselves as a socialist state that was working towards communism, hence their name 'United Soviet Socialist Republic'. They were working =towards= a communist, stateless society.

Karl Marx's ideal of what a Communist society would be like was based on his conception of stone age societies such as the Native Americans. Everyone in the tribe shared what little resources they might have had equally with the other members of the tribe. When the hunters brought back their kill, everyone in the community shared in the work as well as the meat. Even those members of the tribe who could do no productive work was provided for, yet there were no 'slackers'.

If you needed to use a neighbor's tool, and they weren't using it at the time, you just took it and brought it back when you were done. The Europeans didn't understand this. If you bought a shovel or a hammer it belonged to you, and even if it sat idle no one else was allowed to use it without your permission. When the Indians lent them something to use, they seemed to think it was a gift to keep forever, so when the Indians took it back they got the term 'Indian giver'.

Most conservatives at this point would say something like "Sure, this system works on a small scale but..." then go from there to explain why. At this point though, I'm still not sure whether you recognize this as communism.

<<Land owership is not the ownly issue. Property ownership in general is a fundamental difference between free enterprise societies and communistic ones.>>

Such as the 'free enterprise' society of Ancient Athens versus their communistic rival of ancient Sparta? Sure, I understand that. In Athens, slaves were considered as private property, whereas in communistic Sparta the slaves (and everything else) belonged to the state.

James: "Did you know that there were such things as Christian Communists Dan? These people seem to think that by voluntarily choosing to live in a communist society, they are living according to the desires and methods of Jesus Christ."

<<Sure, small groups of people including Christians have engaged in the communist farce. Even the early colonialists experimented with it, until they all began to starve. No states have successfully implemented because it is not reality based, but utopian based. Sinful man corrupts everything. >>

Well, just so long as you acknowledge that there are such things as Christian communism.

<<Our founders understood this, which is why they gave us a representative republic with separation of powers and dual government. It has worked pretty will, and provided the greatest freedom AND prosperity the world has ever known. You ought to try it, you might actually like as we do.>>

I'm confused about what you are saying here.

A representative republic isn't necessarily dependent on any particular economic system. Most of Europe has a representative republican government, and these are socialist countries. I don't know what you mean by the separation of powers and dual government either. Do you mean the legislative, executive and judicial branches? What do you mean by dual government? Senate and Congress? This stuff isn't dependent on any particular economic system. It would still work just as well with a socialist economy.

If I wanted to 'try it' Dan, it would be easier to pack up all my belongings into a cube van and drive for 45 minutes until I cross the border and just buy a house in the United States and become an American citizen, rather than attempt to change the entire governmental system of Canada. As it is, Canada has had to 'keep up with the Joneses' so that life in Canada is at least as pleasant as life in the United States. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any people left in Canada, or Canada would have adopted the U.S. system of government a long time ago.

For the most part, Canada was formed and/or settled by Americans who chose to remain loyal to King George III during the Revolutionary war. The reason they chose to remain loyal to the King was because they preferred the system of a representative monarchy to a constitutional republic. So the government in Canada was based on the government in England. However, the close proximity to the United States meant that Canada was able to adopt and assimilate anything that was working well, and avoid anything that was causing problems.

To say that Canada should just adopt the same system of Government as the U.S. is like saying "Canada really has no business existing as a country at all."

Canada has freedom and prosperity as well. The African slaves that escaped along the underground railway would certainly agree that they had more freedom in Canada than they ever had in the southern United States. Canada has far more natural resources than the United States has, and without the transatlantic convoys of supplies from Canada to England the Allies would have lost the Second World War. Remember that President Roosevelt called Canada 'The warehouse of Democracy?'

James: "Christian communists trace the origins of their practice to the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles at chapter 2 and verses 42, 44, and 45:

42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (King James Version)"

<<I know very well were it traces to, but they lift the passage out of its context. This passage reflects voluntary short term sharing of goods within the Jerusalem church only at a time of severe poverty. Kinda like what could happen in a severe depression where the family all moves in together. >>

Are you really sure it was within the Jerusalem church? It was my understanding that Jesus and his followers were completely separate from the Jerusalem church. Jesus would never be accepted as a Rabbi within the Jewish church, since he was an unmarried man in his 30's and you have to be married to be a Rabbi. Remember there was no such thing as Christian church at this time. It wasn't formed until after the death of Jesus.

I understand your analogy about a family, especially an extended family all moving in together during times of extreme poverty. They might be forced to share their clothes, or toys or room, but once their Dad gets a job everyone in the family is relieved to get their own stuff.

Yet this passage above refers DIRECTLY to Jesus and the Apostles. Not the Jerusalem church, and not necessarily during a momentary downturn in the economy of Ancient Israel. There were no stock markets or speculative investments in these times. It's understandable why Jesus and the Apostles would be poor, since they were traveling with little opportunity to practice their trades. Jesus did not charge money for healing the sick, or receive a fee for his sermons.

Even most churches and public schools and libraries work this way today. The church has a bunch of tables and chairs that belongs to the church, a dining hall that belongs to the church, but everyone who is a member of the church gets to (conditionally) use the church's equipment. The books in a public library belong to the library, but the library belongs to the people. So, as one of the public you are entitled to take books out of the library free of charge and return them when you no longer need them.

Isn't this collective ownership? How is this not communism? Why are you scrambling for some other words to describe what it is?

<<Later in Acts you see where Annanias sold some of his property, gave it too the church and exaggerated what he had given (he kept some of it back while stating he gave it all. What did Peter say James? Do you know. Surely you do not you abuser of the bible!

Read closely to this passage in Acts 5:

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."

No one was required to give, the money was their own, but if you did give, you should not lie about the amount you gave. This is not Communism! Property ownership with voluntary giving is Free Enterprise, not communism.>>

I don't think it was just the lie, it was what the lie was about. There is a difference between lying about what I did on the weekend, and lying on my income tax report. Sure, Ananias could have kept the money, since it was 'at his disposal' but I don't REALLY have to pay income taxes either. The money is also at my disposal. If I choose not to pay income taxes, I should expect to suffer the consequences. Ananias chose to keep the money he had promised and that's why he and his wife (who did not lie) were struck dead.

The only reason to lie is to attempt to cover up a misdeed. Ananias had to be doing something wrong in order to lie to begin with. Others in the Bible have lied to the holy spirit, and were not struck dead instantly as a result.

<<James: "Did you know that the first European settlers in the American colonies were Christian Communists? ....Yes, their experiment in collective farming failed. "

Thank you for making my point, saves a lot of time: www.sagehistory.net/colonial...rlyva.htm>>

So long as you acknowledge that the first settlers at Plymouth rock were Christian communists. I'm not asking you to accept the ideals of Communism .

However, haven't there been privately and individually owned farms that have failed as well? What about the dust bowl during the Great Depression in 1933, when the entire system of Capitalism itself failed? That caused a famine too. Such things as the weather, crop disease, pests and drought do not necessarily understand or correspond to abstract economic theory.

<<He never advocated a communist political entity nor did the early church. Just check out Ananias and Saphira.>>

James: "How COULD Jesus advocate a communist political entity?"

<<Simple, by speaking out against the current political evils and promoting communism. Yet he didn't.>>

Yes he most certainly did! You don't think that Jesus spoke out about current political evils?

Didn't he promote communism? He shared everything with his group of followers, he healed the sick and fed the poor without asking payment, he spoke against the love of money, he overturned the tables of the moneychangers, and so on, and so on, and so on.

However there was no communist 'political entity' save himself. How could there be?

Rome conquered Israel and anyone that had a problem with the way things were run was crucified. No voting allowed. No political parties. No protesting outside of the Roman embassy with placards. You could pick up a sword and become a zealot like Barrabas,
you could cooperate with the Romans and be allowed to keep your money and position, or you could live on the fringes of this corrupt society as Jesus and his followers did.

<<He didn't advocate anything politically directly actually. All understanding of the biblical philosophy of government comes from principles espoused elsewhere in scripture.>>

Well, he rejected Satan's offer when Satan told him that he (Satan) controlled all the governments of the world and would give them all to Jesus.

Also, he seemed to be supporting a monarchy, and referring to himself as the King of Israel.

James: "For one thing there were no political entities to speak of, unless you consider the Emperor Tiberius who considered himself a living God as a 'political entity'."

<<absurd, Of course there were political entities. Rome was a limited pagan republic.>>

I'm not sure what you mean by 'limited pagan republic'. It makes no sense at all.

'Pagan' is not a system of Government, nor is it an economic system.

Was Rome's 'pagan-ness' somewhat more or less limited than the 'pagan-ness' of Ancient Athens or their rival Sparta? How about the 'pagan-ness' of Persia? India? China? What about the pagan-ness of the decentralized Celts of Britain or the German Ostrogoths? How was the 'pagan-ness' limited? What would be an example of an unlimited 'pagan' state?

The term 'Pagan' has no relevance until well after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire, which is after the council of Nicene in 325 A.D. It comes from the word 'Pagani' meaning 'countryside'. So all it means is 'the country religion'. It's a pejorative term, implying that only the unenlightened bumpkins still followed the 'old Gods' when the sophisticated city folk were all becoming Christians.

"So not only was he a Communist, Jesus was an Anarchist as well."

<<He was neither. As the ruler of all, he demonstrated that he could not be bribed, but rather subjected himself to the laws of God.>>

So as God, he was the ruler of all, as God's son, he was subject to the laws of himself (God), yet as a man, he was arrested, tried and executed by crucifixion? What was he charged with, sedition? Apparently he was subjecting himself to the laws of men as well.

"He told his followers to sell everything they owned, give the money to the poor and follow him."

<<Jesus did not ask everyone to do this, only some and they did it voluntarily, not under compulsion or by government edit. This is not communism either, but more similar to a vow of poverty.>>

James: Not according to your prejudiced and reductionist definition of communism, which seems to necessitate that you surrender your private possessions by means of coercion or government decree. This is a false and very narrow definition of what communism is.

<<Actually, it is straight from the dictionary: "a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state."

Yet nowhere in that definition do I see any reference to coercion, or property being taken by force or threat of force. I see a definition which might easily explain the system that Jesus and his small group of followers had amongst themselves. All of the Apostles shared their food, shelter, and the money amongst themselves as they needed it. Share and share alike. Simple.

<<You just work real hard to make things more complex than they really are. It is a liberal thing...>>

"You complicate, you magnify. I sift, I simplify."

Also, I am not a Liberal.

<<Communism doesn't work in the real world, so it is useless. It leads quickly to corruption, to loss of rights, to black markets, to murder, to persecution of religion.>>

So if something doesn't work, it is useless?
If an automobile doesn't work, is it because the automobile is 'useless', or is it because the automobile needs to be inspected, improved or repaired?

Can you think of a governmental system in the world which DOESN'T lead to corruption (Washington, DC), loss of rights (gun control), black markets(prohibition of alchohol, marijuana), murder(Al Capone, Charlie Manson), and persecution of religion (Waco, Texas)?

<<All communist states are atheistic,>>

I have demonstrated that there have been Communistic societies which have NOT been atheistic, and I have to admit that these have generally been the most successful of the Communistic societies to date.

<<a philosophy which wars against common sense.>>

'Common sense' tells us that the world is flat.

James: "Such a thing as voluntary communism is certainly possible, and this is indeed similar to the vow of poverty that monks take. The monks themselves are deliberately poor, but the monastery itself is wealthy. All the monks voluntarily work for the good of the monastery as well as the whole community. They produce enough for themselves and to sell for profit, they share their resources equally, and no monk is entitled to 'more' than any other monk. The system has worked remarkably well for a thousand years without the threat of force or punishment."

<<Go and produce a communist state, elsewhere, and let me know how that goes.>>

Bring God down from Heaven to talk to everyone here on national television, and let us all know when to tune and and watch.

Isn't this the same sort of argument that you have given me?

<<But to date, you have no examples of successful communist states, anywhere! >>

Sparta.

<<And this in spite of numerous attempts, all disasters for mankind.>>

If it wasn't for the ingenuity, bravery, dedication and sacrifice of three hundred Spartans and their defeat of the half a million invading soldiers from the Persian army at the 'hot gates' during the Peloponnese war, then we'd all be speaking Arabic today.

<<So it is reasonable and logical to assume that maybe this is not the way to go, except in the minds of the deceived like you and Stephen and who knows who else on this forums.>>

You are free to come to your own conclusions of course.

"He said that a rich man has as much choice of entering the Kingdom of heaven as a Camel has of passing through the eye of a needle."

<<I find it comical that you are now admitting that communism equals poverty for all. I of course already knew that but it is hard to get commies like Stephen to admit it in print. >>

James: That is what is known as a 'straw man fallacy' Dan.

<<You are logically challenged James.>>

I say it is YOU who are logically challenged. I pointed out that Jesus said it would be difficult for a rich man to get into heaven and somehow you interpret this to mean 'Jesus said Communism means poverty for all.'

That's a straw man argument. Claim your opponent said something they didn't and attack that ridiculous assertion.

<<It is simply pointing to a direct admission to my point from a hostile source, with a touch of sarcasm.>>

I have no idea what you mean.

"Do you understand what Jesus meant when he said that a rich man had as much chance of entering into heaven as a camel has of passing through the eye of a needle?"

<<Not fully, neither did his disciples. But do you know what he stated after they voiced their concerns? Go read.>>

In other words, you are choosing to avoid or ignore the question. You might as well say "Don't bug me, go play in traffic."

James: "Please explain what Jesus meant when he said this. I'd like to hear your explanation of it."

Dan: God demands that we have no other Gods before him. Jesus confirms this over and over again when people come to him such as the rich young ruler and others who had great wealth. Wealth can become an idol and God does not tolerate idols.

James: The idol of wealth being 'Mammon',which was a God of wealth in that time and place. That is true.

Dan: Yet he didn't mean that the rich cannot go to heaven for two reasons, one is given to the disciples after this comment (go read)

James: Can't you just tell me what this secret reason is? This is like Homer Simpson saying "It says so in the Bible. I dunno. Probably somewhere in the back."

Dan: and the other is that the early church had a fairly large number of wealthy individuals.

James: I seriously doubt this.

For one thing we are talking specifically about Jesus and his Apostles, not the church which formed after the death/ resurrection of Jesus. You can't have wealth without developing and maintaining wealth, which wouldn't have been possible if you were traveling from town to town following your teacher who is healing the sick and feeding the hungry for free. Jesus did not charge a fee for his services, or at least this was never mentioned in the Bible.

For another thing, wealth is power. If the early church had a fairly large number of wealthy individuals then they wouldn't have worried as much about persecution. Also, as you no doubt know the wealthy are interested in maintaining the status quo. They have money from a fairly lucrative business so why would they want things to change? The wealthy Israelis were the aristocratic Sadduccees, or they might have been the moneychangers in the temple who likely had Roman citizenship. The Kings and the Emperors were the wealthiest of all of course, and they certainly didn't want the system to change.

The status quo was the Roman Empire ruling the whole of Europe and most of Asia through military might and brutality. If you were rich during this time, it was only because the Roman empire permitted it. Christianity did not want to maintain the status quo of this world. Christianity wanted to turn the world on it's ear.

<<The Christian understands that his money and possessions are not really his, they are Gods, and he is a temporary steward of them since we are only passing through and have much greater rewards in heaven than the little trinkets which wealth can afford us.>>

I think that is part of "Lay not your treasures here on Earth, but up in heaven."

<<But wealth is a relative thing, I am filthy rich compared to most Costa Rican's, but not so much when compared to other Americans.>>

Wealth is not just money either. Wealth is also your family, your friends, your health, your skills, your talents. In fact, the 'talents' mentioned in the Bible refers to a monetary measure of silver used by the ancient Hebrews. Today we come to understand it as an innate skill, like debating, artistic skill, musical ability, etc.

"In a communist society, such as the one in a monastery, there is no 'rich' or 'poor'. Everyone shares the available resources equally. So in a way you are right. Everyone in a Communist society is equally 'poor', but also equally 'rich' too."

<<Again, a monestary is not a microcosm of a state. It is a religious order which one voluntarily subscribes to. >>

So why can't a monastery be a microcosm of a state? What can and cannot be a microcosm of a state? A town? A village? A city? How about a City-state? How about Sealand? Is Sealand a state, or a microcosm of a state?

www.sealandgov.org/

I think that during the middle ages, the monasteries were one of the few refuges for civilization. They were certainly different from the rest of European civilization in that it wasn't a kingdom with a hierarchical structure of Kings, Lords, and the serfs that supported them.

<<Even here, history is replete with abuses of monks and friars who were supposed to be poor, but were in fact living off of the riches of the poor farmers.>>

Not to mention the Kings, the Knights, the Dukes, the Earls...

<<Until guys like John Wickliff and Jon Huss came along and sparked a desire for freedom that continued to burn brighter and brighter until the reformation and the founding of a new nation,>>

I notice that like Martin Luther, Jon Huss was a poor man who wanted to make the Bible available to all people, and not just to the wealthy educated elite. I suspect that, like Luther, he was outraged at the flamboyance, wealth and corruption of the Catholic church. The Catholic church had set themselves up as the 'middle men' between the ordinary people and God, and had taught that only by giving money to the church could they hope to escape purgatory. This is primarily what the 95 Theses were about.

www.iclnet.org/pub/resour...tyfive.html

<<conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal....>>

If all men are created equal, then why deliberately encourage and foster so much inequality amongst them?

<< I am not a republican >>

No. You're a disillusioned, liberty-loving *independent* wandering lost in the online wilderness of wingnut politics, collecting scraps of Obama-hate and five-decade-old Republican beefs to post on Tribe.net as an act of pro bono publico.

<< for the record, the history of this party is relatively short. >>

At this point, it has existed for most of the American republic's history and its founding predates the communist First International by a decade. Indeed, Lincoln (the first Republican president) was about to be reelected when Western European workers created the FI in 1864!

I suggest reading more actual *books* and less World Newt Daily...

And hey, how bout these...

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

---
rodent (putting the eek in geek)

<<What, no response Dan? Funny how your standards and definitions change based on convenience for your argument. >>

There's a tragic shooting at Fort Hood he has to politicize. It's taken all his interest. He wasn't winning the arguments on this thread anymore, so he started up a few new ones.

Dan, are you ever going to address the fact that you are contradicting yourself in regards to how you define communism?

>>The comment was meant to be taken in humor, appearantly [sic] you are not old enough to remember Reagans [sic] aide making a smilar comment:<<

I am. Regardless, if it was meant to be taken in humour, why did you bother posting a reply in defence of it, complete with "references"?

>> The article was accurate at the time it was written. Your statement above is not accurate now, since Ohio does not allow same sex marriage. <<

I meant Iowa, my apologies.

>>"[Liberalism] is communist lite, tastes the same but goes down easier.<<

Why so vitriolic and contemptuous (and unfunny)?

"[H]omosexuals [are] trapped in this disease ridden life shortening life style choice. The good news is that many have escaped and are now leading normal heterosexual lives."

Wow. Why do you make such ridiculously bigoted and unsupported statements?

I think I'll respectfully bow out of this particular conversation with you, Dan. "Never argue with a fool; the onlookers will be unable to tell the difference." It's getting so that even I cannot.