WillingToDie

[2]But if you notice, it begins with the people being of one heart and soul. It's easy to share what you have with your family and friends whom you know likewise care for you. Can you do so with total strangers whom you have no idea what they will do with what you paid for? If you don't start out as being of one heart and soul, the whole cookie crumbles. [3]Question: If Israel was under Socialism during the time of Christ, would Joseph of Arimithea have had the money to have his own tomb with which he would have been able to bury Jesus' body in? [4]I am one who believes that private organizations do a better job at taking care of the poor than the governement. Question: If your possessions and money were "owned by everyone" - would you be able to tithe what you have to your church? Well, how can you if it's not yours to tithe? Question: How many churches could run their ministries to the poor if the government was regulating financial redistribution? Consider this - when major disasters strike (i.e. the tsunami of 2004), how many donations pour in from private citizens and corporations and businesses? (I remember there being a fuss because some countries thought the US government gave too little, but if you inlcuded the private sector and not just the government, the amount poured in from the US pretty much surpassed everyone.) With socialism, would this have been possible? . [5]Now, about your statement, I disagree that Capitolism favors the wealthy. I believe it favors productivity. When the ones that have are not greedy and selfish, but give what they have to the poor and needy, Capitolism works great! (For a little inspiration, check out how many NASCAR drivers pour their wealth into others' organizations or their own organizations that help such. It's very heart-warming. ) Going back to my previous statement, would they be able to continue such things as Victory Junction (a camp for chronically and seriously ill children) if the governement had control of their funds? Would you want the governement regulating such things as Victory Junction? (Because then it wouldn't be the Petty's camp - if ownership is taken away - or if they depended on the govenrnment for funding rather than the donations from the other drivers and fans, wouldn't they have to follow the government's petty rules like the public schools? OK Neb, I took a different approach to answering. Also I had to delete all the points where you quoted me, so it looks kind of weird. [1]It's hard to say, the fact that 4:32 says that none claimed any possessions indicates that it was expected of those who came into the community to not claim any possessions of their own. [2] A couple of things come to mind here: First, my original statement in this thread was that socialism is not evil, because the early church practiced something that was similar to what we call socialism today (no ownership of property, property distributed as needed, etc), not to defend the economic system known today as socialism. While I freely admit that I have socialist leanings, this does not make me a Socialist. [3]Second, every time you give money to a homeless person, are you not giving money to someone who you have no idea what they're going to do with it? You hope they use it to buy food, but you also know that chances are they will use it to feed whatever addiction they suffer from. Socialism does not necessarily entail Communism (or Marxist Socialism), and therefore does not necessarily mean there are no rich people. Look at Europe, who are, in general, far more socialist than we are. Again I ask, what indication is there that Jesus and the Apostles would choose Capitalism over Socialism? [4] Private organizations may indeed be more efficient, but they clearly do not have the means to operate on the scale that is needed. If the government were to stop taxing everybody, I doubt that everyone who has excess money would pour that into organizations to help the poor. At least the government, while not terribly efficient, is capable of acting on the scale needed. Second, although my understanding of tax law is slim, my understanding is that money donated to non-profits is tax-deductible, at least in part (and if it's not fully deductible, it should be). Finally, I am not espousing full Socialism, I support a healthy mix of Capitalism and Socialism, so constantly having to defend something I don't fully support is....tiresome [5]historically speaking, capitalism has been an abysmal failure when it comes to taking care of the poor. Due to the human condition, greed is the driving force behind Capitalism. Put differently, Capitalism, in its purest (and other less pure) form rewards greed. Does that not disgust you? I know it does me. [1] Let's look at the text: But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; 2with his wife

I was thinking about the decline in record sales the other day and a thought occurred to me: are we not buying records anymore, or are we just not buying them NEW anymore? With the advent of eBay and Amazon, people are likely buying used albums for much less than the stores are selling them. I know I think the last CD I bought in a store was Velvet Revolver's second album, which came out several years ago.

There was no penalty of death. Try actually reading the Bible. They died for lying to the Holy Spirit by trying to appear that they had given what they had in fact, kept for themselves. It's not even close. Socialism is based upon governmental control of wealth. Socialism is based upon making everyone "equal" in terms of earning/spending power. What you have in Acts is not socialism or spreading wealth or some redistribution of wealth. People simply saw a need they cold fill, and they filled it. They gave to the poor. It does not say that they eliminated poverty, but that they gave to the poor as their conscience dictated. Some might have given less than others and some may have given nothing at all. It was noncompulsary, unimposed giving. It was completely voluntary, free-will giving. One was free to give or not give at all. So, there is absolutely NO similarity here with socialism. It amuses me how you feel the need to imply that I've not read my Bible. It may surprise you that I came to these conclusions by *gasp* reading the Bible. Now, I could turn around and say the same thing to you, as your portrayal of the events is not exactly accurate. First, the deaths: there is much emphasis in that pericope on the deed. It seems to me that the deed of holding back property was just as heinous as lying about it. The most you can say, from the text, is that the lying was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. Second, what we have is indeed a system in which it is explicitly stated that there is no private ownership. Everything they have is sold, not just some of it. It'sright there in 4: 32-37 They would reject socialism altogether. The New Testament never speaks against being rich. It only speaks of allowing riches, instead of God, to be the object of one's love. Jesus Himself taught that the poor would be with us always. The New Testmaent teaches that we are to look after the poor and the orphans and Widows. The New Teatament does not teach that wealth is to be redistributed, but tells those who are rich how they are to treat those who are poor and disadvantaged. Nowhere does the New Testament condemn the acquisition of wealth; it condemns making wealth an idol to replace the Lord. So you're saying that they would reject Socialism (a system that favors the poor and dispossessed) and instead choose to follow Capitalism (a system that favors the rich and powerful)? What evidence do you have for this, other than the fact that you like Capitalism better than Socialism? According to Torah - Those who grew food were to leave the edges of the field and anything harvested that fell off the carts for the poor to glean. This meant that if the poor wanted food, they had to go to the fields and gather it themselves. Everyone had to give 10% of what they had (not necessarily 10% of their income but of the fruit of their labor) to the Temple. This was for the priests to be provided for and for the priests to distribute to those in need. This 10% was across the board - no "those with more have to give a higher percentage." Giving beyond was a free will and it was encouraged and blessed, but not forced. So if they had to chose, they'd probably stick with the Torah. As is noted in Scripture, "the worker is worthy of his wages." But, as far as the government economic system - considering that it was the Roman government in charge, I doubt they would have wanted any more of their money going to Roman control. ~~~~~~ The problem with Capitalism is that it has nothing to curb greed. But, is it the job of government to curb greed? And how can they, when greed is a condition of the heart? Besides how can the Lord reward you for your giving if it is forced and not freely given from your heart? The problem with Socialism is that it kills motivation (why should I work my butt off if I'm going to be no better off then the ones who do nothing or little?) - thus you have less productivity, less money flow, and who would want the headaches of management if the manager was left with the same income as the new hire on the bottom rung? Plus, if the government controls the money and the money flow, they can control what you do with the money they give you. (i.e. you can only buy food from this store - seriously, what would stop them from doing such?). Besides, when the government takes your income, you have no control over where it goes. How do you know that money taken will be feeding a starving child and not funding an abortion or be handed as cash to someone who will spend the money at a bar? How can you know? By the way, with Socialism, who is hurt more - the truly wealthy or the Middle Class? Thanks Neb for your reasoned (and non-condescending) response. I agree that Socialism has its problems (some of them quite serious), it's not perfect. But at least it starts with a concern for the poor. One thing i have noticed is that there's a lot of emphasis on the government "taking money", of forced giving. I understand that you have no control over where your taxes go (I'm not too happy about my tax dollars going to feed a war machine and bail out businesses that dug their own grave), but if you knew that your money was going towards helping the poor, would you not give your money freely through taxes? In an ideal world, those who do have would of course take care of those who don't, but we clearly don't live in such a world. I like our system how it is, in theory, where the government provides a safety net for the people, we're just not doing that great of a job in practice. What they did in Jerusalem was more like a church taking care of its members than it was a government-controlled or regulated economic system. What the believers gave was a free-will offering, not a regulation. Something to note: Acts 11:27-30 27 During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.) 29 The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea. 30 This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul. If the entire Roman world was to be effected, why did they need to specifically help the brethren living in Judea. Could it be that because those with the ability to produce wealth (back then, land was a wealth-generator) no longer had that ability since they sold their land? So while it seemed a good thing to do in the short-term, how did it help them in the long-term? Once they sold their land and gave their money - that was it. They could no longer provide from excess for they no longer had any excess to give. And thus, it seems, they became as much in need as the next guy when hard times came. Is this truly a good idea? This is an interesting point, and perhaps it would have been better to give their land to the apostles, rather than selling it. Another thing to note, the early Christian community would not have been an anarchistic community (clearly), so the apostles were clearly the government for their community. And the Scriptures speak of the people laying the proceeds at the feet of the apostles (i.e. giving it to the government to do with as they see fit).

What about the rest of my post? Do you disagree that if Jesus and the Early Christians had to (hypothetically) choose between Socialism and Capitalism they would likely choose Socialism?

I wonder how willingly it was done when the penalty for refusal to do so was death. Looks like Socialism to me. That is not Socialism. It's pretty close. My point is, the Christians as portrayed in Acts were much closer to Socialism than they were to Capitalism, which so many Christians in America seem to hold in such high regard.

Looks like Socialism to me.

Are they accurate? There are a few things in the Gnostic Gospels, and other non-canonical Gospels, but they should be read only as a matter of scholarly interest.

Right, socialism is evil. Which is why the Christians in the book of Acts were socialists.

I think it's funny how when Carbon Dating goes against your beliefs, it must be wrong! But if, for the sake of argument, it supports your beliefs, it's magically right!

It's a little different with someone like Charlie Manson, who would have a history of spontaneous violence. The fact that he would be unrepentant (I am assuming for the sake of this argument) would cause me concern for my safety. Someone like Ayers however isn't going to spontaneously craft and plant a bomb. Another important fact to take into consideration is that Manson focused on murdering other people, while Ayers focused on destroying government property. I would not have the same fear of safety "hanging out" with Ayers than I would with Mason. But if a criminal committed a crime, was already tried, and proceeded to follow a legitimate career path for over 35 years, yes, I would trust them to do their job, even if it meant being a Girl Scout leader. People can do terrible things and still be productive members of society. No one ever said liberals were rational. That so wrong on both levels. The fact that Ayers has never paid for his crimes, has never repented of his crimes says alot about his moral chracter. He is not sorry for what he did. Its not like he repented, did his time, made full restitution and dedicated his life to improving society. His values or rather the lack of them, remain to this day. You are saying you could accept someone on the grounds that they havent' done anything bad since, whenever, even though they continue to hold to their previous immoral convictions??? You could support Ayers even though he continues to hold the same immoral values he acted on in the past? I find great irony in your first statement. And you people have been misquoting Ayers: to my knowledge he never said that he regrets he didn't blow enough stuff up. What he said was "I've thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it's impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don't think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable." and he later clarified saying "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough ****."' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'" And just so you know (although I'm sure they didn't report this on Fox News) Ayers has expressed regret for his part in the violence and the fact that he had injured people. Which is not really the same as expressing regret for what He did. Its doing something that hurts someone's feelings and saying you're sorry their feelings got hurt, but not going so far as saying you're sorry what what you did. Anybody can get on TV and say what is expedient at the moment. If Ayers truly regrets it, it will make full monetary restitution to the injured and/or their familes and volunteer to serve the time he deserves for his actions. Words of regret are for the most part uselss unless backed with corresponding action. When he backs his words with action, then he might have some credibility. Of course that would mean excersizing a little thing called "integrity." Something liberals don't know much about. That last statement is uncalled for. There is integrity (and lack thereof) on both sides of the aisle. Defending Obama's association with Ayers requres one to suspend both integrity and sound moral judgment and is an exercise in intellectual suicide. Think what you want, nothing I say will change your mind. My point still stands that making blanket statements, regarding both conservatives and liberals, is not only uncalled for but inaccurate.

It's a little different with someone like Charlie Manson, who would have a history of spontaneous violence. The fact that he would be unrepentant (I am assuming for the sake of this argument) would cause me concern for my safety. Someone like Ayers however isn't going to spontaneously craft and plant a bomb. Another important fact to take into consideration is that Manson focused on murdering other people, while Ayers focused on destroying government property. I would not have the same fear of safety "hanging out" with Ayers than I would with Mason. But if a criminal committed a crime, was already tried, and proceeded to follow a legitimate career path for over 35 years, yes, I would trust them to do their job, even if it meant being a Girl Scout leader. People can do terrible things and still be productive members of society. No one ever said liberals were rational. That so wrong on both levels. The fact that Ayers has never paid for his crimes, has never repented of his crimes says alot about his moral chracter. He is not sorry for what he did. Its not like he repented, did his time, made full restitution and dedicated his life to improving society. His values or rather the lack of them, remain to this day. You are saying you could accept someone on the grounds that they havent' done anything bad since, whenever, even though they continue to hold to their previous immoral convictions??? You could support Ayers even though he continues to hold the same immoral values he acted on in the past? I find great irony in your first statement. And you people have been misquoting Ayers: to my knowledge he never said that he regrets he didn't blow enough stuff up. What he said was "I've thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it's impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don't think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable." and he later clarified saying "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough ****."' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'" And just so you know (although I'm sure they didn't report this on Fox News) Ayers has expressed regret for his part in the violence and the fact that he had injured people. Which is not really the same as expressing regret for what He did. Its doing something that hurts someone's feelings and saying you're sorry their feelings got hurt, but not going so far as saying you're sorry what what you did. Anybody can get on TV and say what is expedient at the moment. If Ayers truly regrets it, it will make full monetary restitution to the injured and/or their familes and volunteer to serve the time he deserves for his actions. Words of regret are for the most part uselss unless backed with corresponding action. When he backs his words with action, then he might have some credibility. Of course that would mean excersizing a little thing called "integrity." Something liberals don't know much about. That last statement is uncalled for. There is integrity (and lack thereof) on both sides of the aisle.

It's a little different with someone like Charlie Manson, who would have a history of spontaneous violence. The fact that he would be unrepentant (I am assuming for the sake of this argument) would cause me concern for my safety. Someone like Ayers however isn't going to spontaneously craft and plant a bomb. Another important fact to take into consideration is that Manson focused on murdering other people, while Ayers focused on destroying government property. I would not have the same fear of safety "hanging out" with Ayers than I would with Mason. But if a criminal committed a crime, was already tried, and proceeded to follow a legitimate career path for over 35 years, yes, I would trust them to do their job, even if it meant being a Girl Scout leader. People can do terrible things and still be productive members of society. No one ever said liberals were rational. That so wrong on both levels. The fact that Ayers has never paid for his crimes, has never repented of his crimes says alot about his moral chracter. He is not sorry for what he did. Its not like he repented, did his time, made full restitution and dedicated his life to improving society. His values or rather the lack of them, remain to this day. You are saying you could accept someone on the grounds that they havent' done anything bad since, whenever, even though they continue to hold to their previous immoral convictions??? You could support Ayers even though he continues to hold the same immoral values he acted on in the past? I find great irony in your first statement. And you people have been misquoting Ayers: to my knowledge he never said that he regrets he didn't blow enough stuff up. What he said was "I've thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it's impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don't think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable." and he later clarified saying "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough ****."' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'" And just so you know (although I'm sure they didn't report this on Fox News) Ayers has expressed regret for his part in the violence and the fact that he had injured people.

No, there was no Palestine at the time. The term "Palestine" is based on the Latin "Syria P'listina" which was first used by Hadrian in 2nd Century AD after the defeat of the Barkobah revolt. He called Israel "P'listina" because that is the latin word for "Philistine" and thus it was an insult to name the land after Israel's ancient arch enemy. There was no Palestine in biblical times, ever. Fair enough. After doing some research, the Romans changed it from the Province of Iudaea to Palistina in the early to mid 2nd century. So you are correct in saying that, strictly speaking, there was no Palestine in Biblical Times.

His governing policies are Marxist but his tactics for taking control are a mirror of Hitler's. That is somewhat ironic since Hitler's mortal enemies in Germany were the Communists Calling Obama a Marxist is hyperbole. Obama is clearly not calling for the abolishment of religion (or any other ideology for that matter), nor is he calling for the nationalization of industries and an overthrow of the upper class. Furthermore, much of Europe (and even Canada) is far more liberal than Obama (he's "conservative" by their standards) and none of those countries are Communist. Democratic Socialist, perhaps, but certainly not Communist or Marxist.

Here's some more History: Hitler (and therefore the Nazi party) HATED Communism, and fear of Communism actually helped build support for the Nazi party. Second, Hitler hated Marx, in part because Marx was born a Jew, and Communism was seen as a Jewish Conspiracy. Furthermore, Hitler's allies in Spain were fighting AGAINST Communists.