(11-11-2012 09:45 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 09:33 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Seems socialism was active in the early US

Not to mention early Christianity (See ACTS chapter 4 or any of Christ's teachings)

You are just like your Marxist President your Moronic at best trying to interpret the Bible.Those people in Acts gave willing of their own freewill to others in need.Marxism like your President Maobama steals from achievers to give to deadbeats to lazy to work.Please do us a favor and stop trying to quote the bible you are a moron.

Exactly Liberty.

The end of Chapter 4 talks about them selling of land they were not using and giving all the money to the poor. Not Caesar taxing the fire out of them and re-distributing the wealth.

Chapter 5 talks about those who sell but lie about how much they give.

(11-11-2012 02:45 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 01:04 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Caring for the elderly, poor and sick is not a Socialist concept it is a bedrock Christian principle

If you do those things yourself, you're being Christian. If you steal from me to do so, you're sinning. Enjoy your eternal hell fire.

will i go to hell if i don't give to the poor of my own volition?

(11-13-2012 01:53 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 02:45 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 01:04 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Caring for the elderly, poor and sick is not a Socialist concept it is a bedrock Christian principle

If you do those things yourself, you're being Christian. If you steal from me to do so, you're sinning. Enjoy your eternal hell fire.

will i go to hell if i don't give to the poor of my own volition?

That's the argument.. I say no. Because you're supposed to do it when you feel led to, not because the folks in DC tell you to.

(11-13-2012 01:56 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 01:53 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 02:45 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 01:04 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Caring for the elderly, poor and sick is not a Socialist concept it is a bedrock Christian principle

If you do those things yourself, you're being Christian. If you steal from me to do so, you're sinning. Enjoy your eternal hell fire.

will i go to hell if i don't give to the poor of my own volition?

That's the argument.. I say no. Because you're supposed to do it when you feel led to, not because the folks in DC tell you to.

so basically it's socialism in it's truest sense. i mean, people acting for the common welfare

(11-13-2012 02:20 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 01:56 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 01:53 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 02:45 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 01:04 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Caring for the elderly, poor and sick is not a Socialist concept it is a bedrock Christian principle

If you do those things yourself, you're being Christian. If you steal from me to do so, you're sinning. Enjoy your eternal hell fire.

will i go to hell if i don't give to the poor of my own volition?

That's the argument.. I say no. Because you're supposed to do it when you feel led to, not because the folks in DC tell you to.

so basically it's socialism in it's truest sense. i mean, people acting for the common welfare

No.. It's not socialism when you do it of your own free will. It's socialism when the government says you have to and hands you the bill.

(11-13-2012 03:05 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 02:20 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 01:56 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 01:53 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(11-11-2012 02:45 PM)Paul M Wrote:  If you do those things yourself, you're being Christian. If you steal from me to do so, you're sinning. Enjoy your eternal hell fire.

will i go to hell if i don't give to the poor of my own volition?

That's the argument.. I say no. Because you're supposed to do it when you feel led to, not because the folks in DC tell you to.

so basically it's socialism in it's truest sense. i mean, people acting for the common welfare

No.. It's not socialism when you do it of your own free will. It's socialism when the government says you have to and hands you the bill.

i'm talking about the utopia that socialism/communism promised. from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. i'm not talking about government interference. a true christian's ideal wouldn't it follow, to be "heaven on earth?" maybe call it communalism

(11-13-2012 03:20 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 03:05 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 02:20 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 01:56 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 01:53 PM)Lush Wrote:  will i go to hell if i don't give to the poor of my own volition?

That's the argument.. I say no. Because you're supposed to do it when you feel led to, not because the folks in DC tell you to.

so basically it's socialism in it's truest sense. i mean, people acting for the common welfare

No.. It's not socialism when you do it of your own free will. It's socialism when the government says you have to and hands you the bill.

i'm talking about the utopia that socialism/communism promised. from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. i'm not talking about government interference. a true christian's ideal wouldn't it follow, to be "heaven on earth?" maybe call it communalism

Some have speculated that to be the case. It's not a very robust line of thinking IMO.

I think it's pretty defensible, especially if it were a government of those choosing to be governed that way.

(11-13-2012 03:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 03:20 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 03:05 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 02:20 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 01:56 PM)gdunn Wrote:  That's the argument.. I say no. Because you're supposed to do it when you feel led to, not because the folks in DC tell you to.

so basically it's socialism in it's truest sense. i mean, people acting for the common welfare

No.. It's not socialism when you do it of your own free will. It's socialism when the government says you have to and hands you the bill.

i'm talking about the utopia that socialism/communism promised. from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. i'm not talking about government interference. a true christian's ideal wouldn't it follow, to be "heaven on earth?" maybe call it communalism

Some have speculated that to be the case. It's not a very robust line of thinking IMO.

certainly a devout christian would heed christ's message and bequeath their wealth. but god, on the other hand wasn't all about charity like his pansy son. god was a republican

(11-13-2012 03:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I think it's pretty defensible, especially if it were a government of those choosing to be governed that way.

But what about the seperation of church and state.

(11-13-2012 04:55 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 03:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I think it's pretty defensible, especially if it were a government of those choosing to be governed that way.

But what about the seperation of church and state.

I'm not discussing a realistic scenario involving the US, I'm talking about a theoretical government based on christs teachings. And I think even in that government, there would be a separation of church and state in some aspect.

(11-13-2012 04:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 04:55 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 03:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I think it's pretty defensible, especially if it were a government of those choosing to be governed that way.

But what about the seperation of church and state.

I'm not discussing a realistic scenario involving the US, I'm talking about a theoretical government based on christs teachings. And I think even in that government, there would be a separation of church and state in some aspect.

You're probably correct, but again I don't think we'd see a government that says.. Hey you, you owe us 10% right off the top pal for a tithing and another 70% to give to the poor.

That's why it's free will.

Remember the story about giving at the temple. These wealthy folks would walk up and make just astronomical tithes but a little old lady walked up with I think 2 coins and she gave one. Christ declared she had given more than the rich folk.

The way I've been taught is you give 10% every paycheck, pay your bills, and what's left is between you and the Man Upstairs.

We couldn't run a government that way unless the people put in place all the infastructure.