Re: Hate Crimes Bill Will Criminalize Free Speech

Brian Oakley wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:gu6rdi02np2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Brian Oakley wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:gu4qtr0let@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Brian Oakley wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:gu3d1102dg7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
coinsusa wrote:
And when you get time, read Acts 4:32-35 for guidance as
to the wise
use of your wealth. I wouldn't want you to miss the
opportunity to do the right thing.

James
'Jesus was a liberal'

*gasp*

And apparently a "Socialist".

*shudder*

Socialist?! Karl Marx iterated that Bible passage nearly
verbatim in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. Thus, it
appears that the early apostles were C... oh, I'd better not
say it here, what with web crawlers and all.

In any event, it's certainly not an ideal that I could ever
aspire to reach, because, quite frankly, I'm kind of a selfish
jerk, but I would expect Cindi to make at least a token attempt
to follow that 1st-century example.

James-


The difference between acts 4:32-35 and Communist doctrine is
simple. The communists believe that "what you have is mine and I
am taking it from you." what happened in the book of Acts is
"what I have is yours and I will share it with you" There is a
big difference. Now, as to calling Jesus a liberal, well, I
think he said "my kingdom is not of this earth" and he had no
interest in politics. so that just doesn't seem to fit either...
I am curious however, do you attend church regularly?


The regularity of my church attendance is no one's business but
God's, and certainly not germane to the discussion.

But it is germane to how much Bible teaching and study you might
actually posess.

Hi, Brian, long time no read! Thanks for taking me out of your
killfile. I doubt that any Bible CV that I might reveal would
impress you. I
don't make a habit of beating people over the head with my level or
specialties of education, and I don't intend to start now. But
then, you have never revealed any of your qualifications to me,
either.

Well, beating on people doesnt require a speciality, as you have
demonstrated in the past.

Oh, but it's so much fun to do it and watch my victim yell and
squirm and wave his hands!

Sir, you couldnt beat your way out of a paper back. Dont take
yourself so seriously.

A paper...back? And what's this "Sir" business? My name is James.

You obviously understand that the story told in Acts 4:32-35 is
the only known report of successful
implementation of pure communism, that is, living and sharing of
everything
communally, with no private ownership of anything. All other
attempts have
been perverted and have failed over the long run, once greed
rears its ugly
head, and it always does, except for that one time. What the
Soviet Union,
the PRC, Cuba, and other countries practiced from 1917 forward
was not communism, nor was it inspired by Acts 4:32-35. It was
classic totalitarian
dictatorship and repression by brutal strongmen, of the type that
has plagued the Human Race for thousands of years, characterized
exactly as you
have stated it.

But sharing within a Christian community is not communism. It is
not mandated for the Christian to remain a Christian. Communism,
even in its purist form REQUIRES the "cooperation" of everyone to
mantain the STATE, not the person. Again, communism rests itself
in the theorem that the STATE is supreme, not God.

Acts 4:32-35 reads pretty clearly to me. The pure communism (check
the classic definition, including the significance of the base
word, "commune" and you will see that the early Apostles practiced
exactly that). There was no Christian STATE ever mentioned in
Acts that I can find. Correct me if I missed something.

But Marx idea of communism DOES include the STATE.

Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but I didn't mention Marx at
all in what you responded to.

But you did mention communism. The communism you are refering to is
not the same as what is in the Bible. Sorry, but it just isnt. If
you remember, he is the one who espoused the kind of communism that
YOU were refereing to.

Well, I try and try, but I don't see me saying that they were the same
thing. Let me try one last time. "Little c" communism is that which was
reported in Acts. "Big C" Communism is that which was practiced by the
Soviets et al. Marx predicted "little c" but his words were twisted and
perverted into "Big C." That will just have to be my last word on that
sub-topic.

But take time also to read Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto,
the Critique of the Gotha Program and other mid-19th century
writings by Mark, Engels, and others, as opposed to doing what
most people do, that is, taking
someone else's word for what's in them. Unless you know from
your own investigation what's in them, you will fall prey to
every huckster who comes
along peddling his own "version" of what's in them (same way with
the Bible - hardly anybody has actually read it, but rather they
rely on what somebody else says it says - the worst type of
scholarship imaginable - but
never shrink from then going around quoting it to suit their
purpose of the
moment). Don't even take my word for it. Read it for yourself.
You will find those authors predicting that the working classes
will rise up and throw off their repressive, selfish, dictatorial
masters and take over communal ownership of the means of
production, a far cry from what we saw in
1917, 1949, and 1959. You will find Marx quoting the Book of
Acts almost verbatim. Then read the Bible for yourself. The
whole thing. There is no
question in my mind that Marx and his fellows would have been
appalled beyond belief to see how their philosophy, as well as
the Holy Scriptures, had been twisted and misrepresented by the
simpering Lénine, Staline, Mao and Castro.

Maybe, maybe not, in the fact that communism again relegates
authority to the STATE and not to God.

Communism as promulgated by Lénine, Staline, Mao, and Castro indeed
relegated authority to the STATE, and all four of them might as
well have echoed Louis XIV in saying "L'état, c'est moi!", however
that famous phrase might be rendered in Russian, Chinese, and
Spanish. The communism practiced by those first-century Christians
indeed relegated authority to God, as reported in Acts.

But communism as espoused by Marx requires everyone to give
regardless of their willingness, again, the STATE is the highest
authority according to Marx, not God.

Marx did not require anything. His vision was predictive, not
prescriptive.

But his ideas were applied to the people, economy, sociology etc,
which make up the STATE. In his explaination, everything he speaks
of leads to a STATE, an entity that determines the rules. As we
know, if there are no rules, people do what they want to do, and that
wont work in communism.

What happened to Marx's ideas are hardly his fault. Marx was in the grave a
quarter of a century when Lénine did his thing. He was no doubt spinning
when he saw what was going on in his name.

Likewise would the author of Acts been shocked by the huge
chasm between the economic arrangement he described and the
exploitative economic arrangement of what we have blindly
believed to be "communism" for
the past 100 years or so.

As for Jesus' interest in politics, He had quite a lot to say
about the Establishment of the day. In fact, He risked His life
(and lost it) to turn the established system on its head and get
people to think in an entirely new way.

Actually, thats not why Jesus said He LAID DOWN HIS LIFE (as well
as had the power to pick it up again).
Jesus SAID:

Luke 19:10, "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that
which was lost."

and

Matthew 20:28, "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered
unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

Jesus didnt come to turn the established system around.

Well, an entirely new Great Faith resulted from his activities here
on earth, and so far has lasted 2000 years, so I'm having trouble
seeing your point. Providing a way for sinners to enter the
Kingdom of Heaven, where none existed before, sounds like a
significant turnaround to me. That's the way I read Scripture. YMMV.

Well, you would be misreading, because the Bible says that:

Romans 4:3, "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and
it was counted unto him for righteousness."

That measn faith in God is what matters. The sacrifice of Jesus is
what makes that faith a saving faith.

I think I just said that you and I can each read and understand
Scripture, and you are saying that I am wrong and that only your way
is the correct one. I capitulate only to God. I will never
capitulate to you, Brian Oakley. Our conversation must necessarily
end right here. James
Well, thats ok. But if your understanding of why Jesus came was to
enlighten the world so that everyone could be happy and live and let
live, then you are missing the point entirely.

Yes, I confess, I am missing the point entirely. But not for the reason you
project upon me.

James


.

Relevant Pages

  • 1. The Communistic Trap to use Christianity to destroy Christianity through The World Council of Chu
    ... Signs today that show the Coming Merger of Communism ... Jesus Christ, who was, is, and is to come. ... What the Mark of the Beast is. ... or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, ...
    (soc.culture.indonesia)
  • Re: Hate Crimes Bill Will Criminalize Free Speech
    ... Now, as to calling Jesus a liberal, well, I think he ... not communism, nor was it inspired by Acts 4:32-35. ... mandated for the Christian to remain a Christian. ... authority to the STATE and not to God. ...
    (rec.collecting.coins)
  • Re: Hate Crimes Bill Will Criminalize Free Speech
    ... 'Jesus was a liberal' ... The difference between acts 4:32-35 and Communist doctrine is simple. ... communism, nor was it inspired by Acts 4:32-35. ... You will find Marx quoting the Book of Acts almost ...
    (rec.collecting.coins)
  • Re: Hate Crimes Bill Will Criminalize Free Speech
    ... Now, as to calling Jesus a liberal, well, I ... not communism, nor was it inspired by Acts 4:32-35. ... in the theorem that the STATE is supreme, not God. ... Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but I didn't mention Marx at all in what you responded to. ...
    (rec.collecting.coins)
  • Re: Did Marx Speak of Marxism?
    ... communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as ... communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as ... Naturalism is much discussed today and in a sense not unlike how Marx ... This is a classic philosophical contradiction. ...
    (soc.politics.marxism)