• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Christian Communism II


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#31 william7

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,777 posts
  • 17
  • Location:US

Posted 29 December 2007 - 04:06 PM

Karl Marx was advocating using the addictive properties of humanity's faith system into intentionally manipulate the masses into what he perceived was a better more enlightened *secular* society.

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were atheists who believed they were putting communism on a scientific basis. Notice the book by Frederick Engels entitled Socialism: From Utopia to Science. Also, see http://en.wikipedia...._and_Scientific. As a result of their atheism and the limited nature of their scientific reasoning, they were not able to see the necessity of the Scriptures for building the type of Christian character communism needed to become a viable way of life. All they saw were the negative effects of Satan's counterfeit Christianity. They were not able to see the big picture.

The critical factor that Karl and you are working with however is the idea of creating a common addiction that is essentially *state* controlled.

Karl Marx was shooting for a classless, "stateless" society from my understanding. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism. What the Bible is prophesying is a unique sort of government, where God's laws and Christ's teachings are the law of the land with everyone having the law of God instilled in their heart and mind so well that it's always obeyed. With a sharing of all things as the economic system, it would be a classless, stateless society.

Also, our relationship with Jesus Christ will not be a master/servant relationship. Instead, we will be joined to Him like a husband and wife. See Hosea 2:16; Revelation 19:7-8. This type of governance (if it can be called that) will be much different than anything that's ever been done before.

The chances of you getting people today to agree on any form of religious doctrine is far less likely than 2000 years ago and it was obviously slim to none then.

You must remember that I'm counting on God to back my play with some Holy Spirit assistance of substantial magnitude. that is prophesied to come in Acts 2:17-21.

If you really want to help them then help getting them to kick the habit.

If we end up with another attempt at an atheistic form of communism, I think we'll be in real trouble this time. We could end up with a Stalinist AI that will be very unmerciful.

I'll try to answer more of your posts laters. The kids want more Care Bears.

#32 william7

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,777 posts
  • 17
  • Location:US

Posted 02 January 2008 - 03:27 AM

Especially because the second aspect of your prophetic vision I lament is that if it were even remotely feasible for your messiah to return I would warn him off.

These people killed him before and they would do it again religiously.

That's why at Jesus Christ's Second Coming He'll use force to put down the rebellion of the wicked. He must put this rebellion and wickedness down otherwise mankind will suffer extinction. See section 1 of the latest Good News magazine, at http://www.gnmagazin...nprophecies.htm. This article is a must read for anybody interested in the prophecies concerning Jesus Christ's Second Coming.

If there really is a Jesus you should realize he doesn't want us to rely on him to save us for that just means we have learned nothing in two millennium. If he existed and was truly loving then like a good parent he would want us to work together to make his welcome a simple and safe one, where not only are we safe from one another but he is safe from us. If your god was a worthy one then he would encourage us to make his second coming unnecessary, not one where he fosters more opiate addicted mindless worshipers.

The first coming of Jesus Christ shows this is not possible. The people of today would persecute Him in a similar fashion. They made a major movie of what it would probably be like for Jesus to return today the same as He did at His first coming. I didn't see the movie; only the advertisement for it in a religious magazine. If I remember correctly, law enforcement was hunting Him down in New York City.

Karl Marx advocated making a religion of science to replace and unify all religions into one religion that holds the state supreme, not merely a state religion.

I don't know where you get this idea from. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were atheists who wanted to put communism on a scientific basis. See, for example, The Development Of Socialism From Utopia To Science, by Frederick Engels, at http://www.slp.org/p...arx/dev_soc.pdf.

Also, the result of a fully developed communism, would be a classless, stateless society. The Wikipedia says:

"Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism.

You don't just want Christianity, you want your particular sect of Christianity to reign supreme.

I don't have a particular sect of Christianity that agrees with me about Christian Communism and how it should be set up. The United Church of God who publishes The Good News magazine does not believe Jesus Christ will set up a communist society without private property or money when He returns as I do. We only agree on some aspects of biblical prophecy and certain key doctrines. I only advocate them because they are a good spot to start studying the Scriptures. They're very talented at explaining the Bible in a general way, but they do miss the boat in certain key areas.

Sorry for the delay in responding! I'm just recovering from a long weekend trying to manage two little girls, who were pretty tough customers, and from other hassles of trying to set up a communal society at the Bible campus I live on. We are not all in agreement on various issues - particularly child rearing.

#33 william7

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,777 posts
  • 17
  • Location:US

Posted 03 January 2008 - 10:18 PM

elders council indeed. So we get old and we are automatically wise and powerful?

That would be elders' councils with democracy. If we study and put into practice God's law and Christ's teachings correctly, we will also have God's Holy Spirit in greater measure and this will make us a wise and discerning people capable of better democratic decision making, and, as a result, more capable of utilizing advanced technologies and living out dramatically extended lifespans. It's going to take a people with a radically different social organization and character from that which exists today to do what the Immortality Institute proposes to accomplish. The Bible has all the necessary materials to build that social organization and character needed to do the job.

You really think you can unite even Christians under a single interpretation?

True, I can't do it by myself through my own strength. It will take many serious and dedicated Christians to build the communal society the Bible points to as the solution to mankind's problems. As the destruction from the plagues and natural disasters prophesied in the book of Revelation pick up, God's Holy Spirit will show true Christians the right way to live in response to those terrible times.

The mistake you are making is that the very idea that there is a single interpretation of the bible is what leads to violence. Read this story:

Priests Brawl Inside Bethlehem Church

Merry Christ's Mass

This is all Satan's counterfeit Christianity. The very stuff Jesus Christ is returning to destroy. The priests in the brawl are from the Greek Orthodox church which is very similar to the Roman Catholic church. Notice where it says in the article that:

"The basilica, built over the grotto in Bethlehem where Christians believe Jesus was born, is administered jointly by Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic authorities."

They have joint authority because they're of like mind.

The Merry Christ's Mass article clearly shows the pagan origins of Christmas. Christmas is a holiday and not a Holy Day authorized by God. It's nothing but an invention of Rome.

BTW, I almost forgot the fourth argument you make repeatedly: It ain't their way it's our way. All those others guys have the false interpretation but we have a corner on the truth.

Elijah that route is a dead end. It hasn't worked in all of human history and it isn't going to now. There is no more sure path to violence than trying to create a one size fits all belief system and tell everyone that they have to join or be threatened. Has it occurred to you that the approach you are presenting is a classic example of the road to hell being paved with good intention?

Can you show me where any of the small egalitarian/communal societies are fighting amongst themselves? Israel's kibbutz project was considered the world's most successful example of voluntary socialism in the world for a time. I never read of any violence amongst them either. The only violence I read they engaged in was against Muslims as soldiers in Israel's army.

Elijah that route is a dead end. It hasn't worked in all of human history and it isn't going to now.

May be we can ask the AI what route we should take to achieve eternal life. That's probably the first big question we should put to it when it's become a greater than human intelligence. What do you think?

#34 william7

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,777 posts
  • 17
  • Location:US

Posted 07 January 2008 - 12:51 AM

well the "biblical" Jesus as in walking on water and doing miracles virtually certainly did not exist. However there isn't a single contemporary account of a historical Jesus that was anywhere near as important as the bible makes out. And the romans and Jews both generally kept fairly good records.

People of note were generally blind to Him. It was the same way with Elijah; They did not recognize him, but done to him everything they wished. Matthew 17:12.

#35 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 07 January 2008 - 10:44 PM

Elijah, do you think that having too many people "dooms" communism? It seems to me that communes can work on a small scale (less than a thousand people or so), but once you scale it up to a whole nation, or large groups of people, it begins to break down. I feel as if this is because once the numbers become large enough, one is no longer "held accountable" for their actions which might negatively affect the group. (I think this is outside of the religious angle, of course, and just a result of human nature in general.)

#36 william7

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,777 posts
  • 17
  • Location:US

Posted 08 January 2008 - 01:38 AM

Elijah, do you think that having too many people "dooms" communism?

Yeah, too many people packed into one spot would make communism more difficult for humans as you point out. It works well enough for the bees and the ants though.

I'm advocating for the small (under a thousand people as you say), communal units or groups that are well spread out but fully connected with the most advanced computing technology God and the future can come up with.

Thanks for responding to this thread!

#37 rippinit

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Antonio, Texas

Posted 30 January 2008 - 07:14 PM

Elijah, do you think that having too many people "dooms" communism?

Yeah, too many people packed into one spot would make communism more difficult for humans as you point out. It works well enough for the bees and the ants though.

I'm advocating for the small (under a thousand people as you say), communal units or groups that are well spread out but fully connected with the most advanced computing technology God and the future can come up with.

Thanks for responding to this thread!


The result of theoretically pure Capitalism would be the same as theoretically pure Communism. The lack of need for government. Not possible even by Biblical standards since by those standards God is needed. By Biblical standards Jesus Christ will eventually rule over utopia with an iron rod. Market economies exist in Scripture since Jesus Christ himself worked in a market economy just as Christ administered copious amounts of charity though it was of His own cheerful freewill to do so.

Obviously, government aside from totalitarism in our present world will always be some sort of socialism within the spectrum between true Capitalism and true Communism.

#38 william7

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,777 posts
  • 17
  • Location:US

Posted 31 January 2008 - 01:07 AM

Market economies exist in Scripture since Jesus Christ himself worked in a market economy just as Christ administered copious amounts of charity though it was of His own cheerful freewill to do so.

I would like to be enlightened further on this. From my understanding of the Scriptures, Jesus didn't even have a home to lay His head and Judas pretty much controlled the money bag for basic necessities. Matthew 8:20; John 12:4-6. Where is Jesus any type of significant player in a market economy? All Jesus' teachings point to a moneyless, propertyless society where everything is shared. In fact, this is how His disciples and followers interpreted it when they gave up all their personal property and shared everything in order form the first intentional community of Christians. Acts 2:42-45; 4:32-35.

#39 rippinit

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Antonio, Texas

Posted 31 January 2008 - 03:14 AM

Market economies exist in Scripture since Jesus Christ himself worked in a market economy just as Christ administered copious amounts of charity though it was of His own cheerful freewill to do so.

I would like to be enlightened further on this. From my understanding of the Scriptures, Jesus didn't even have a home to lay His head and Judas pretty much controlled the money bag for basic necessities. Matthew 8:20; John 12:4-6. Where is Jesus any type of significant player in a market economy? All Jesus' teachings point to a moneyless, propertyless society where everything is shared. In fact, this is how His disciples and followers interpreted it when they gave up all their personal property and shared everything in order form the first intentional community of Christians. Acts 2:42-45; 4:32-35.


Jesus was a carpenter with His earthly father Joseph. He made things for trade until he left His earthly parents just as Joseph made things for trade.

When Jesus started His ministry (His purpose for His first visit in the flesh) He and His disciples lived for the purpose of revealing and preaching the Gospel hidden in the OT that included loving your neighbor. His purpose was not to share things (though he did willingly) and His purpose was not to get married and raise children.

When Jesus threw the tradesmen out of the temple it was for abusing the purpose of God's temple. He did not condemn tradesmen who traded in general. Why would he? The OT is replete with characters making a living for themselves and their own families.

Ever hear of the Plymouth Plantation?

Edited by rippinit, 31 January 2008 - 12:14 PM.


#40 william7

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,777 posts
  • 17
  • Location:US

Posted 01 February 2008 - 12:24 PM

Jesus was a carpenter with His earthly father Joseph. He made things for trade until he left His earthly parents just as Joseph made things for trade.

I agree, but this wouldn't be any reason to say Jesus didn't bring a higher standard of brotherly love and mercy requiring communal living for it to be practiced effectively.

His purpose was not to share things (though he did willingly) and His purpose was not to get married and raise children.

I disagree. Jesus came to teach a higher level of communal sharing where a higher standard of brotherly love, mercy on the weak, and commandment keeping could be practiced. The reason He didn't marry and have children was because He knew He would be put death at a fairly early age and would not be able to personally care for a wife and cxhildren. His ministry also took up all His time. He would not have had time for a wife and children.

When Jesus threw the tradesmen out of the temple it was for abusing the purpose of God's temple. He did not condemn tradesmen who traded in general. Why would he? The OT is replete with characters making a living for themselves and their own families.

Again, Jesus Christ came to bring a higher standard of communal sharing than what was practiced in the Old Testament. The early Christian Church in Acts 2:42-47; 4:32-35 practiced this higher standard of communal sharing according to His and the apostles teachings and with the assistance of God's Holy Spirit.

Ever hear of the Plymouth Plantation?

Yes, but I don't think they were practicing anything close to what Jesus Christ taught and what the early Church in Acts practiced. They didn't keep the Sabbath and other Holy Days mentioned in the Old Testament that Jesus and His followers kept for instance. I think they practiced a lot of the pagan customs the Catholic Church under the Roman conquers introduced.

#41 rippinit

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Antonio, Texas

Posted 01 February 2008 - 02:49 PM

Jesus was a carpenter with His earthly father Joseph. He made things for trade until he left His earthly parents just as Joseph made things for trade.

I agree, but this wouldn't be any reason to say Jesus didn't bring a higher standard of brotherly love and mercy requiring communal living for it to be practiced effectively.


His purpose was not to share things (though he did willingly) and His purpose was not to get married and raise children.

I disagree. Jesus came to teach a higher level of communal sharing where a higher standard of brotherly love, mercy on the weak, and commandment keeping could be practiced. The reason He didn't marry and have children was because He knew He would be put death at a fairly early age and would not be able to personally care for a wife and children. His ministry also took up all His time. He would not have had time for a wife and children.


Christ was very loving, but His purpose here was much greater than simply to show us how to live. We are all sinners and will sin despite His example. His primary purpose was to be perfect and to die as a sacrifice for us.

I think Let Us Reason puts it quite well:

http://www.letusreason.org/Doct60.htm
Man's dilemma is SIN. No one is exempt from this. Yet, God had a solution from the beginning of the world. At a certain point in time He would become a man (John 1:14) and die for our sins (Jn.12:24. Somewhere in the eons of eternity was decided that the Son would be sent to earth. He was sent from heaven to earth to fulfill a mission of the utmost importance, to take care of man's debt of sin (He is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev.13:8b.) He came to seek those who are lost (Mt.18:11; Lk. 9:56,19:10).

Jesus' coming to earth is described in Philippians 2:6, He, "made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." This is the reason he became a man, to give His body as a sacrifice for our sin. He became human to save sinful humanity. Vs.8 "Being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross."

God from the beginning had required a substitutionary sacrifice for our sin. Since the Old Testament sacrifices of animal's was only temporary to cover sin, it was necessary to have something more, more powerful and lasting. Jesus is not just a human atoning for all the sins, He is God come in human flesh (1 Tim.3:16;. He died for all our sins past, present and future this can only be possible unless he is eternal. So unlike the Old Testament sacrifices it that could never take away sins, and needed to be repeated, this only had to be done once. As God, the Son's death had infinite value and His priesthood is an eternal one because the one who died was an eternal being (Hebrews 9:12-15).

Hebrews 5:9: "And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,

1 Peter 1:20: "He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you"

Hebrews 9:26: "He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."

John 12
1 Then, six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was who had been dead,[a] whom He had raised from the dead. 2 There they made Him a supper; and Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those who sat at the table with Him. 3 Then Mary took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.
4 But one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, who would betray Him, said, 5 "Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii[b] and given to the poor?" 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.
7 But Jesus said, "Let her alone; she has kept[c] this for the day of My burial. 8 For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always."

The purpose of those who are called is to "love your neighbor and be fishers of men". As Christ exemplified as such as we are to follow. However, the purpose of Christ was much more profound.



When Jesus threw the tradesmen out of the temple it was for abusing the purpose of God's temple. He did not condemn tradesmen who traded in general. Why would he? The OT is replete with characters making a living for themselves and their own families.

Again, Jesus Christ came to bring a higher standard of communal sharing than what was practiced in the Old Testament. The early Christian Church in Acts 2:42-47; 4:32-35 practiced this higher standard of communal sharing according to His and the apostles teachings and with the assistance of God's Holy Spirit.

In Acts 8:1, we read of a terrible persecution of the church in Jerusalem. They fled. They could flee because they had sold all of their real estate and most of their personal possessions. They were in effect packed and ready to leave.

This is the background of the decision by members of the Jerusalem church to sell their real estate and hold some (not necessarily all) of their money in common. There is no record of any other church in the New Testament period that did this.

Common money was entirely voluntary. Ananias and Sapphira sold their real estate, kept some of the money in reserve, and handed the rest over to the leaders of the church for use in the church. They told the leaders that they were giving all of their money. They made a big show of this. God then made an even bigger show. He killed them. But Peter made it plain to Ananias that their money had been theirs to keep. Their sin was in lying about the percentage (100%) of their gift (Acts 5).

It is also worth noting that the Jerusalem church was the most poverty-stricken church in the New Testament. Paul took up a collection throughout the European churches on behalf of the Jerusalem church (II Cor. 9). Common property has a tendency to produce poverty except in extraordinary circumstances, such as in monasteries.



Ever hear of the Plymouth Plantation?

Yes, but I don't think they were practicing anything close to what Jesus Christ taught and what the early Church in Acts practiced. They didn't keep the Sabbath and other Holy Days mentioned in the Old Testament that Jesus and His followers kept for instance. I think they practiced a lot of the pagan customs the Catholic Church under the Roman conquers introduced.


I don't think the Puritans, the Amish, or even disciples of Ellen White are perfect but many are trying and I do believe that there were and are at least some of them who believed in the sacrifice God made for them. I am one who strongly believes that communism is stealing if at anytime someone feels pressured to give more than what they feel is right. By definition, that would mean that communism is stealing.

Jesus summed up in one commandment what it meant to follow Him. Love thy neighbor.

Jesus never even gave 10% and 10% is not a requirement contrary to what many preach. In fact, Peter made a mistake when he once said that Jesus would pay the tithe. It would of been a sin for Jesus to do so. Jesus was not a farmer and was not required to supply goods to the temple. Therefore, Jesus saved face for Peter by telling him to go to the water and catch a fish where he would find enough money to pay the tithe.

OT farmers were required to tithe a certain percentage of their wealth to support the priests, the poor, and to have enough left over for a celebration of their contributions at a place of worship. This tax in itself is a market principle since communism would require the submission of all wealth.

The temple and animal sacrifice passed as being superfluous after the perfect sacrifice. Christ fulfilled all OT laws and then took them to the cross and bled. Our own bodies are now the temple of God and the sacrifice has been paid in full.

Edited by rippinit, 01 February 2008 - 02:52 PM.


#42 william7

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,777 posts
  • 17
  • Location:US

Posted 02 February 2008 - 02:45 PM

Christ was very loving, but His purpose here was much greater than simply to show us how to live. We are all sinners and will sin despite His example. His primary purpose was to be perfect and to die as a sacrifice for us.

He came to show us how to live perfect, sinless lives. All you need to do is read Matthew 19:21-27 to see that Jesus taught a propertyless and nonmaterialistic way of life in order to become perfect. What happens is that people who have property and money try to twist His teachings as well as the other Scriptures to support their way of life.

In Acts 8:1, we read of a terrible persecution of the church in Jerusalem. They fled. They could flee because they had sold all of their real estate and most of their personal possessions. They were in effect packed and ready to leave.

Yes, and this would be all the more reason for society to develop a propertyless and moneyless way of life based on true Christianity. Living in such a state is more adaptable to harsh and unpredictable environments where mobility is needed.

But, you must remember Jesus taught against private property well in advance of the persecution you mention. At no time during the Acts Church's development is it mentioned that they're only giving up private property and sharing everything in order to be ready to flee persecution.

This is the background of the decision by members of the Jerusalem church to sell their real estate and hold some (not necessarily all) of their money in common. There is no record of any other church in the New Testament period that did this.

No such revelation was given to them as I point out above. The Essenes practiced a communal way of life sharing everything before the Acts Church did. Many Bible scholars believe that John the Baptist visited the Essenes frequently when he lived in the desert. It is also believed that many of the new converts to the Acts Church were, in fact, Essenes. For more on the Essenes see:

http://en.wikipedia....ogy_and_beliefs

http://mb-soft.com/b.../txo/essene.htm

http://www.themystic.../e/essenes.html

http://education.yah...a/entry/Essenes

http://lexicorient.com/e.o/essenes.htm

http://latter-rain.c...ael/essenes.htm

http://www.bartleby....es/Essenes.html

http://reluctant-mes...sene/index.html

Common money was entirely voluntary. Ananias and Sapphira sold their real estate, kept some of the money in reserve, and handed the rest over to the leaders of the church for use in the church. They told the leaders that they were giving all of their money. They made a big show of this. God then made an even bigger show. He killed them. But Peter made it plain to Ananias that their money had been theirs to keep. Their sin was in lying about the percentage (100%) of their gift (Acts 5).

True, no one was forced to participate in the fellowship and blessings of the early Christian Church. However, to participate one did have to give up personal property and share everything.

It is also worth noting that the Jerusalem church was the most poverty-stricken church in the New Testament. Paul took up a collection throughout the European churches on behalf of the Jerusalem church (II Cor. 9). Common property has a tendency to produce poverty except in extraordinary circumstances, such as in monasteries.

It also tends to produce too much leading back to private property, materialism, and the weakening of superego strength. Israel's Kibbutz project and The Farm, the communal society based on the hippie church model in Tennessee back in the 1970s, are examples of this. I'm sure there are others.

My belief is that if Christian Communism is practiced just right according to the Scriptures along with the right advances in green technology and longevity science, it can avoid the problems of poverty and plenty and produce the Utopian world prophesied in the Scriptures.

I don't think the Puritans, the Amish, or even disciples of Ellen White are perfect but many are trying and I do believe that there were and are at least some of them who believed in the sacrifice God made for them. I am one who strongly believes that communism is stealing if at anytime someone feels pressured to give more than what they feel is right. By definition, that would mean that communism is stealing.

Communism is stealing when it goes to support a bureaucratic elite with special privileges and power beyond that of the rest of the community.

Jesus never even gave 10% and 10% is not a requirement contrary to what many preach. In fact, Peter made a mistake when he once said that Jesus would pay the tithe. It would of been a sin for Jesus to do so. Jesus was not a farmer and was not required to supply goods to the temple. Therefore, Jesus saved face for Peter by telling him to go to the water and catch a fish where he would find enough money to pay the tithe.

The temple tax mentioned in Matthew 17:24-27 you refer to was more than likely some Jewish or Roman tax not authorized by God's law as given through Moses. Jesus advocated paying the tithe. Mathew 23:23-24. As Jesus pointed out early in His ministry, He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. Matthew 5:17. This means the Law that came through Moses, who also prophesied, must stand.

OT farmers were required to tithe a certain percentage of their wealth to support the priests, the poor, and to have enough left over for a celebration of their contributions at a place of worship. This tax in itself is a market principle since communism would require the submission of all wealth.

The tithe law does not prohibit you from giving everything to God and community. The tithe law will always remain on the books because of the possibility that man will again return to private property after the Millennium when Satan is loosed again. Revelation 20:7-8. The people will probably again refuse to pay what is owed to God and He will again look at them as robbers and thieves. Malachi 3:6-12.

The temple and animal sacrifice passed as being superfluous after the perfect sacrifice. Christ fulfilled all OT laws and then took them to the cross and bled. Our own bodies are now the temple of God and the sacrifice has been paid in full.

But always remember that this does not abolish the Law which will be instilled in the hearts and minds of man so he is careful to follow it. Hebrews 10:15-16; Ezekiel 11:19-20. If you don't believe that, you're only fooling yourself.

#43 Kalepha

  • Guest
  • 1,140 posts
  • 0

Posted 02 February 2008 - 03:12 PM

All you need to do is read Matthew 19:21-27 to see that Jesus taught a propertyless and nonmaterialistic way of life in order to become perfect.

I would take it that this means that there's no way for me to be perfect if I consider my body to be my property and made of materials.

#44 william7

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,777 posts
  • 17
  • Location:US

Posted 02 February 2008 - 06:28 PM

All you need to do is read Matthew 19:21-27 to see that Jesus taught a propertyless and nonmaterialistic way of life in order to become perfect.

I would take it that this means that there's no way for me to be perfect if I consider my body to be my property and made of materials.

No, this reasoning doesn't apply to biological material from my understanding. However, some serious Christians do consider their whole person as belonging to God for His use as He see fits. In 1 Corinthians 6:19, Paul says:

"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;"

#45 Kalepha

  • Guest
  • 1,140 posts
  • 0

Posted 02 February 2008 - 06:50 PM

No, this reasoning doesn't apply to biological material from my understanding.

So, according to this understanding, if over some time I become completely nonbiological, and I can be of more or less nonbiological material, that is, of more or less of my own property, then I might be more or less distant from perfection.

However, some serious Christians do consider their whole person as belonging to God for His use as He see fits. In 1 Corinthians 6:19, Paul says:

"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;"

I don't know that this makes sense to me if God will do whatever He wants with me, anyway, with or without my conscious permission.

#46 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 02 February 2008 - 09:44 PM

elijah3- It is kind of ridiculous you still post here. We are literally the least likely population to ever believe in your insane and arbitrarily narrow religious sect.

#47 william7

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,777 posts
  • 17
  • Location:US

Posted 02 February 2008 - 09:47 PM

So, according to this understanding, if over some time I become completely nonbiological, and I can be of more or less nonbiological material, that is, of more or less of my own property, then I might be more or less distant from perfection.

If you become a bionic man and upload your mind into this machine, I don't believe you become property in the same sense as material wealth and private property are defined today. The logic and reasoning behind Matthew 19:21-27 in regards to perfection would not be applicable to such a situation in my opinion.

#48 william7

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,777 posts
  • 17
  • Location:US

Posted 02 February 2008 - 10:02 PM

elijah3- It is kind of ridiculous you still post here. We are literally the least likely population to ever believe in your insane and arbitrarily narrow religious sect.

Aren't you presuming too much in regards to the human capacity to change? I gave up various addictions and criminal behavior and became a serious Bible thumper. I've read a number of accounts of hard core atheists reversing course and adopting a belief in God. The worst of sinners can become the best of saints they say.

#49 rippinit

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Antonio, Texas

Posted 02 February 2008 - 10:31 PM

elijah3- It is kind of ridiculous you still post here. We are literally the least likely population to ever believe in your insane and arbitrarily narrow religious sect.

Aren't you presuming too much in regards to the human capacity to change? I gave up various addictions and criminal behavior and became a serious Bible thumper. I've read a number of accounts of hard core atheists reversing course and adopting a belief in God. The worst of sinners can become the best of saints they say.


I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you are still a sinner. There has only ever been one who is sinless and he died on a wooden cross to save those who would believe in Him.

When Jesus told the rich man to sell his possessions if he wanted to follow Him he was making an analogy. The point is that you should not be attached to your possessions in a way that they become your God.

If you believe in the whole Bible then you understand that Paul preached to many different churches, including the church of Philadelphia that received high marks from Jesus in Revelation, that were made up of property owners and tradespeople. Never heard a sermon from Paul chastising the Christians for owning things. It is good that you are a believer, but you may want to compare your notes with the notes of others regarding what it means to be a Christian.

Christ is on nearly every page in the OT in analogies, similitudes, types, pre-NT appearances and more. Abraham on Mt Moriah with Isaac when God provided His own sacrifice and the passover where the blood of spotless lambs was used to protect households (didn't matter who was in the houses-they were saved from the petulance if there was blood on the door posts) are a couple of examples of Christ in the OT.

If the purpose of Christ was merely to show us how to live then what is the blood of Christ worth?

Edited by rippinit, 02 February 2008 - 10:34 PM.


#50 rippinit

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Antonio, Texas

Posted 02 February 2008 - 11:03 PM

But always remember that this does not abolish the Law which will be instilled in the hearts and minds of man so he is careful to follow it. Hebrews 10:15-16; Ezekiel 11:19-20. If you don't believe that, you're only fooling yourself.




The following is an excerpt from a commentary you should read. There is risk in what you are pushing...


"Does the Law of Moses apply to Christians?": Christians are free from the necessity of keeping any of the commands of the Mosaic Law. But, it is very important to keep in mind that Christians have the freedom in Christ to observe portions of the Mosaic Law if they so please. This point is what Romans 14 is all about. That chapter makes it clear that a Christian has the freedom to observe or not observe the Jewish feast days and dietary laws. Paul wrote that chapter, and he practiced it by observing the Sabbath, the feast days, the laws pertaining to vows and the purification laws. Yet, he did not try to enforce these observances upon other Christians.

Like Paul, many Messianic Jews today observe various portions of the Law of Moses. They have the freedom in the Messiah to do so. But they must be cautious that they do not carry their observance too far. Here is how Dr. Fruchtenbaum expresses that caution:

There are two dangers that must be avoided by the Messianic Jew who chooses to keep portions of the Law of Moses.

One is the belief that one who does so is contributing to his own justification and sanctification. This is false and must be avoided. The second danger is that one may demand or expect others to also keep the Law. This is equally wrong and borders on legalism.


The one who exercises his freedom to keep the Law must recognize and respect another's freedom not to do the same.
[You] may be wondering what Jesus meant when He said in His sermon on the mount in Galilee, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17). How can these words be reconciled with my conclusion that the Law has been abolished? The answer is so obvious that it is hard to see. The Law of Moses did not end with the coming of Jesus or with the initiation of His ministry — but with His death. As long as Jesus lived, He — as a Jew — was under the Mosaic Law and was obligated to fulfill it, which He did perfectly. But when He died, He became the testator of a New Covenant that completely replaced the Old.


<h3 align="center"> The Question of Salvation</h3> One final point — many people are under the mistaken impression that a different way of salvation existed under the Law of Moses. The argument usually goes this way: under the Mosaic Law salvation was obtained by obedience to the Law; whereas today, under the New Covenant, salvation is by grace through faith.

This concept is completely erroneous. There has never been any method of salvation except grace through faith. Long before the Law of Moses was given, the Patriarchs (like Job, Enoch, and Abraham) were saved by the grace of God when they related to Him in faith. After the Law was given, the Jewish people continued to be saved by grace through faith.

Obedience to the Law never saved anyone; first, because it was impossible to obey the Law perfectly, and second, because the sacrifice of animals was insufficient to atone for human sin.

The law served as a tutor to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah (Galatians 3:24). It did this first of all by convicting people of their sins. Second, it motivated them in this sin-consciousness to look for a Messiah who would shed His blood to atone for their sins.

http://www.lamblion....ael/Jews-08.php

Edited by rippinit, 04 February 2008 - 01:51 PM.


#51 basho

  • Guest
  • 774 posts
  • 1
  • Location:oʎʞoʇ

Posted 02 February 2008 - 11:08 PM

elijah3- It is kind of ridiculous you still post here. We are literally the least likely population to ever believe in your insane and arbitrarily narrow religious sect.

Aren't you presuming too much in regards to the human capacity to change? I gave up various addictions and criminal behavior and became a serious Bible thumper. I've read a number of accounts of hard core atheists reversing course and adopting a belief in God. The worst of sinners can become the best of saints they say.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you are still a sinner.

Elijah is making a postive effort and, more importantly, thinking through various ideas (not that I agree with him on his premise or conclusions in the area of religion.) You, however, are suffering from a severe case of Biblically induced mental retardation as evidenced by the stink of your incoherent posting diarrhea splattered all over the forums.

#52 rippinit

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Antonio, Texas

Posted 03 February 2008 - 05:47 AM

elijah3- It is kind of ridiculous you still post here. We are literally the least likely population to ever believe in your insane and arbitrarily narrow religious sect.

Aren't you presuming too much in regards to the human capacity to change? I gave up various addictions and criminal behavior and became a serious Bible thumper. I've read a number of accounts of hard core atheists reversing course and adopting a belief in God. The worst of sinners can become the best of saints they say.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you are still a sinner.

Elijah is making a postive effort and, more importantly, thinking through various ideas (not that I agree with him on his premise or conclusions in the area of religion.) You, however, are suffering from a severe case of Biblically induced mental retardation as evidenced by the stink of your incoherent posting diarrhea splattered all over the forums.


Sweetheart, why don't you tell me how you really think?

#53 william7

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,777 posts
  • 17
  • Location:US

Posted 03 February 2008 - 09:47 PM

Posted Image

#54 rippinit

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • 0
  • Location:San Antonio, Texas

Posted 04 February 2008 - 02:43 AM

Posted Image


Posted Image




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users