Do Christians need to be patriotic in order to be godly?

[BlindSeeker]

Just being totally honest here, this shows an attitude of pride . . .

Actually, you re just being emotionally opinionated and not following or addressing the facts

How so? How was my post "emotionally opinionated

[BlindSeeker]

Apo, we have some areas of agreement on this topic. For example I think that if we separate AND isolate then we can no longer spread the Gospel or show our light to people as an example, this is a problem.

But I want to look at Acts 4 and 6 for a minute.

31 And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles

[Smalcald]

But I want to look at Acts 4 and 6 for a minute.

31 And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles

[apothanein kerdos]

Apo, what Acts is presenting to us is clear, it says clearly that they owned everything in common. Now I said some form of communal living, sure maybe they commonly owned the places where they individually lived as families, and it was not one building. But common ownership is pretty clear, so is saying that they sold ALL of their homes and land and laid the proceeds at the apostle

[Smalcald]

Acts is not clear on this what so ever. I believe it was you where I debated this before where you said that they lived a life similar to Communism. If you will remember back to that thread (if indeed you were the one involved), Leonard, I, and a few others adequately disproved it. It seems you are still sticking with this interpretation though.

Well the text says they owned all things in common, well you can spin that, well wait a minute you can't even spin that, it says what it says. Living as a group does not mean living in some bunk house, or one common house, it means owning things in common, period, it is not hard to understand the basic meaning of the text.

Certainly living physically separate is not a necessary command of the bible, but scripture most certainly allows it. You say the Amish are not Christian by the bible, well probably not in total, but neither is the Church you attend. What church do you attend apo? I mean we know that the first Christians had such a strong church relationship that they owned their possessions in common, that anyone who owned land or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds and laid them at the feet of their church leaders. Do you do that? If not I would guess you might be in danger of the things you accuse the Amish of doing, in danger of not being a biblical Christian of the scriptures.

Give me as break.

As I have proven from both biblical and extra-biblical texts, this myth that they were ontologically separate is nothing more than that; a myth. Going back to my point, which I now believe has been vastly ignored, we see:

But you have not, not even close. Why does Acts say what it does? It is clear yet you keep trying to NOT look at the direct passage, why?

The problem is if they were a separated group they would have been unable to do these things.

Sure they would. I guess we have a different idea about separation and what it means. I can provide you with many examples of people living separately having a great influence on those around them. I guess I don't understand why you find this so troubling? I never saw you as a big capitalist, why the knee jerk reaction against this way of life?

[kjw47]

i had a reply all framed out and ready, but when i reread it, i found it contradicted itself, and i discovered i really don't know. i will have to think about this for a while and get back to you. i don't think you have to be patriotic to be Godly, but God does tell us to subject ourselves to authority. hmmmmmmmmm!!!!?????????

I would like to share this with my brothers, The question of the day is should i be patriotic to be a christian in these last days? To me Gods word is pretty clear-- Daniel 2:44 God will crush every kindmom of this earth ( Does God crush what is his ?) also in the book of revelation it says-- that satan will lead every kingdom against God. in the days Gods word was written , all countries were kingdoms, today they are called Governments. So it clearly states that satan will lead all human govts against God and God will crush them, so in ones heart can one support the govt of men, and Gods kingdom? Jesus taught to pay unto ceaser, ceasers things ( taxes ) So i guess one must ask this question, Can i support satans side and Gods side within my heart and truly be a christian? Simply put both sides in this war on terror have filled their hearts with hate for his brothers whom God created and gave to us, thusly spreading this hatred throughout the country where they are towards one another, This is a teaching opposite of Gods son Jesus, an opposite teaching leads one away from God, The teachings of Jesus is what draws one closer to God.

[apothanein kerdos]

Well the text says they owned all things in common, well you can spin that, well wait a minute you can't even spin that, it says what it says. Living as a group does not mean living in some bunk house, or one common house, it means owning things in common, period, it is not hard to understand the basic meaning of the text.

This is begging the question. You are taking your interpretation for granted without really addressing the merits of what you are saying. I have pointed out time and time again that the greater context does not state what you want it to state. Again, going back to the contextual argument:

Again, if you look at this in the context if it not refering to communal living at all. If it is, why did it specify who's houses they would meet in when we look to Acts? More importantly, it does not say all owned everything, the context is telling us that if someone needed something and they had it, they had no problem giving it to them. This does not mean if someone wanted something to eat but could provide for it on their own means got it. Instead, they would give what they could and the disciples would give this out based upon need. In a communal system there is common ownership. In the system we see in Acts, there giving to those that needed it. If they were living communally, then no one would be in need because everyone would own everything. This is why your interpretation is not working.

If they owned all things in common then there would hav ebeen absolutely no need for the disciples to deligate what went where. Though these people gave their goods to the disciples, it was given out based upon need, not in a communal form. For something to be communally owned this means that everyone has a say on the use of that object and everyone is entitled to that object. This was not the case in Acts, and the text is very clear on that, especially when placed in the context. Wha toccured is members would give their goods but the disciples would distribute these goods to people. You are focusing on one sentence and not the context.

After we see this verse you are stuck on, we see this:

For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses awould sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles

[Kabowd]

The fact that they went "house to house" kind of gives away the fact that they each owned their own property.