Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Any self-respecting Christian.....

I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 11:57:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 11:43:46 AM, InquireTruth wrote:
The idea of common-wealth came from the early Church, post-Jesus' ministry. Moreover, both Jesus and Paul supported governing rulers.

Jesus turning over the tables at the markets and attacking the rich while helping the poor, and advocating all should do the same. You'd swear it's something Marx would do ;).
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 12:09:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 11:29:44 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Should be an Anarcho-Communist if they truly believe in Jesus.

Define "Jesus". If you mean the historical figure, yes. But then again, he definitely wasn't a son of God, nor is it very unlikely that he ever claimed to be. So few people "believe" in him.
So prove me wrong, then.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 12:10:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 12:09:50 PM, regebro wrote:
At 10/6/2009 11:29:44 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Should be an Anarcho-Communist if they truly believe in Jesus.

Define "Jesus". If you mean the historical figure, yes. But then again, he definitely wasn't a son of God, nor is it very unlikely that he ever claimed to be. So few people "believe" in him.

Nor was it likely that he existed at all...
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 12:30:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Jesus turning over the tables at the markets and attacking the rich while helping the poor, and advocating all should do the same. You'd swear it's something Marx would do ;).

Stating an action without its respective purpose seems disingenuous, wouldn't you agree? Did Jesus turn the tables over because (1) he was against capitalism? Or (2) because they were selling in the temple, inadvertently turning it into a "den of robbers?" At what point did Jesus "attack" the rich? Jesus taught that the LOVE of money was the root of all evil. Those who are rich often suffer from the aforesaid more frequently than the poor. Advocating that people ought to care for the down-trodden, the lowly, the hurt, and the disenfranchised is no more a communist virtue as it should be a human virtue.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 12:33:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
~Matthew 19:24 (http://bible.cc...)
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 12:35:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 12:30:26 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
Jesus turning over the tables at the markets and attacking the rich while helping the poor, and advocating all should do the same. You'd swear it's something Marx would do ;).

Stating an action without its respective purpose seems disingenuous, wouldn't you agree? Did Jesus turn the tables over because (1) he was against capitalism? Or (2) because they were selling in the temple, inadvertently turning it into a "den of robbers?" At what point did Jesus "attack" the rich? Jesus taught that the LOVE of money was the root of all evil. Those who are rich often suffer from the aforesaid more frequently than the poor. Advocating that people ought to care for the down-trodden, the lowly, the hurt, and the disenfranchised is no more a communist virtue as it should be a human virtue.

If Jesus had his way, I have no doubt the farms would be collectivised for the common good.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 12:36:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 12:33:41 PM, Nags wrote:
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
~Matthew 19:24 (http://bible.cc...)

But the bible does not define rich... so we would have to look at the greek translation.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 12:49:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 12:30:26 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
Stating an action without its respective purpose seems disingenuous, wouldn't you agree? Did Jesus turn the tables over because (1) he was against capitalism? Or (2) because they were selling in the temple, inadvertently turning it into a "den of robbers?" At what point did Jesus "attack" the rich? Jesus taught that the LOVE of money was the root of all evil. Those who are rich often suffer from the aforesaid more frequently than the poor. Advocating that people ought to care for the down-trodden, the lowly, the hurt, and the disenfranchised is no more a communist virtue as it should be a human virtue.

But isnt a system that forces people not to become rich, better, if your goal is to remove the love of money away from people?

I mean, the parable of "It is easier for a camel to walk in the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven", clearly says that those who are unable to part with their money, will not enter heaven, and those that are able to part with their money, should prove that they are capable of such a feat by actually parting with their money(i.e. giving it to the poor).
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 1:30:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 12:10:59 PM, JBlake wrote:
Nor was it likely that he existed at all...

It is highly likely that there lived a man, born sometime around the rule of Pontius Pilate, whose name was Yeshua bar Yosef and who was the leader of some sort of religious group. The hints we have from the bible indicated that he was a fundamentalist Jew, arguing for a return to the Mosaic laws.
So prove me wrong, then.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 1:42:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If Jesus had his way, I have no doubt the farms would be collectivised for the common good.

And fortunately for us, the truth of the matter is not contingent on the level of your doubt.

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
~Matthew 19:24 (http://bible.cc......)

There is no verse in the Bible that I am not already familiar with, so instead of just quoting a particular verse, why not share what you believe this verse to be saying and how it supports the larger point you are making. There is no doubt that Jesus saw wealth as a hindrance to spiritual growth. His original hearers, the Jews, would have been astonished that Jesus was saying this – they thought wealth was a sign of God's favor and blessing. They also thought that the rich could essentially BUY themselves into heaven. He is challenging that notion, saying instead, that those who are rich often times have a much more difficult time extricating themselves from worldly soirees.

But isnt a system that forces people not to become rich, better, if your goal is to remove the love of money away from people?

Any system that eliminates choice is inherently a bad one. The point is not that being rich is bad, but that it increases the probability of disaster. Your logic can be defeated Reductio ad absurdum . For there are many things that, though not inherently bad, increase the probability of tragedy or misbehavior, shall we also eliminate those things? I'll wait for your answer before I list some specifics, or perhaps you will be keen enough to figure a few out yourself.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 2:59:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Although Jesus advocated the rich helping the poor, He probably would prefer the rich not to be forced out of their money by government, but to choose to help the poor. That's what charity is. Charity comes from the heart, not government.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 3:08:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 2:59:42 PM, mongeese wrote:
Although Jesus advocated the rich helping the poor, He probably would prefer the rich not to be forced out of their money by government, but to choose to help the poor. That's what charity is. Charity comes from the heart, not government.

Charity only comes from the "heart" when there is enough "heart" there. In all other cases, it is clear that something has to be there to make sure that, regardless of those lacking "heart," the people that need the charity don't suffer from a lack of "heartful" people. Otherwise, you'll be making the relief of suffering contingent upon whether or not someone has enough "heart," a very risky, unaccountable and unreliable proposition indeed.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2009 8:53:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 12:30:59 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
Nor was it likely that he existed at all.

Are you willing to defend this position in a debate?

Hi InquireTruth. This is a possibility I've only recently begun considering but I may challenge you on this in the near future if your up for it.

I intend to research this possibility over the next few weeks and I think debating it with a learned Christian such as yourself could be a good way to lean more.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 7:45:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Didn't Jesus also make the unqualified claim that if you were rich you stood less of a chance of getting into heaven than a poor man. Can this not be seen as a condemnation of engaging in capitalism.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 9:19:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
It's simple enough to believe in Jesus. Good liars tend to be economical with their lies. Why make up a whole person as Messiah when you can take a real person and tack on a few attributes? Especially if you can take yourself and get the adulation yourself? :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 9:38:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 12:33:41 PM, Nags wrote:
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
~Matthew 19:24 (http://bible.cc...)

Yeah but i always thought that the greek translation only means that "rich man" really meant a person that is so rich and engulfed with greed.

Solomon was rich, and many kings were rich... it was translated to rich man , but really meant rich greedy man not caring about anything or anyone, just his money.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 9:56:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 11:57:25 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 10/6/2009 11:43:46 AM, InquireTruth wrote:
The idea of common-wealth came from the early Church, post-Jesus' ministry. Moreover, both Jesus and Paul supported governing rulers.

Jesus turning over the tables at the markets and attacking the rich while helping the poor, and advocating all should do the same. You'd swear it's something Marx would do ;).

Jesus overturned the tables in the market because the money lenders had set up in the temple, as money lending is actually of dubious morality in Judaism (no really) and as they had set up in the temple that is why he was so angry.

But yes, some of his actions and statements clearly suggest socialism, not anarchy however.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 2:13:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 9:56:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/6/2009 11:57:25 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 10/6/2009 11:43:46 AM, InquireTruth wrote:
The idea of common-wealth came from the early Church, post-Jesus' ministry. Moreover, both Jesus and Paul supported governing rulers.

Jesus turning over the tables at the markets and attacking the rich while helping the poor, and advocating all should do the same. You'd swear it's something Marx would do ;).

Jesus overturned the tables in the market because the money lenders had set up in the temple, as money lending is actually of dubious morality in Judaism (no really) and as they had set up in the temple that is why he was so angry.

But yes, some of his actions and statements clearly suggest socialism, not anarchy however.

He wasn't necessarily anti-government, but would prefer a Christian anarchy
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.