Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Missions / Witnessing / eVangelism' started by Crabtownboy, Nov 22, 2013.
Amen and AMEN.
Please read the entire article before responding.
I'm pretty far right, but I agree with some of the things on the list...others I agreed with only to some extent. Maybe it's just my libertarian mind, but overall the whole article seemed to start off on the unfair basis on that those on the right want the opposite of the points made?
Example...redistribution of wealth...yes, you could say the early church practiced it. And they did it without the help of the government. But the question isn't so much, should we help the poor, as should we use the government to help the poor, so it's a bit of a false premise it seems.
And the one on immigration is another example...honestly, I've never known anyone on the right who actually hated immigrants and in fact are very supportive of them--as long as they come here legally. Our nation was once the melting pot, after all, and likely many of us are descendants of immigrants.
As I get older I am finding myself leaning away from neo-conservatism. I now identify myself as a libertarian, which still have pretty much the same beliefs on limited government but tend to have different views on social issues than conservatives.
But, I don't see political views as having much to do with the Bible. IMO in that ballpark, you could make scripture lean toward whatever bias you happen to have.
Ancient Israel was pretty much a theocracy--which is impossible now since God doesn't rule nations directly anymore in the way He did with Israel back then. And the nations in the NT? I find it interesting that none of the letters to the churches seem to say anything about changing the government, but rather making the believers themselves reach out to the masses and each other.
This is the problem Marixsts have, they do not get the difference between what happens voluntarily between individuals and being forced to do it by the government. There seems to be a disconnect from reality there. Marxism just fries the brain.
Read it. He makes a lot of claims about the Bible, but doesn't offer even one verse in support of any of them.
I can't help but wonder if he's ever read the Bible.
I'm on my iPod/supposed to be studying right now, but...there are plenty of verses throughout scripture where we are told that helping the poor is something that we ought to do/that God blesses. I don't believe it could be argued otherwise, and so it would stand to reason that churches in the first century did this as a form of ministry and outreach.
A verse in James 2 (I'm better at remembering the content of the verse than the reference, apologies) speaks of how true religion is helping the fatherless and widows, basically those who need support and help.
My main point was that whatever the church did, it apparently did of it's own accord with no apparent government help or assistance. Especially considering many churches were in different countries.
#4 and #5 - I would love to see his scripture support. His comment about Jesus telling someone to sell everything he had and give it to the poor is taken out of context; it had nothing to do with redistribution of wealth, but with the condition of the rich young ruler's heart.
#8 - is he equating immigrants to Gentiles?
I pretty much agree with the rest; perhaps not in the same way he does (#9, for example; Rev 11:18 isn't a reference to caring for the earth).
But it's interesting to see his claims that the bible says this and says that, but he uses generalities instead of specifics.
Socialists (progressives, Marxists etc its all the same) always misuse and abuse scripture to further their agenda to use force to make people redistribute their wealth. No where in scripture does God suggest that it is ok to use the force of the government to redistribute wealth.
Socialism, progressivism, Marxism ( its all the same) is evil and dishonest and straight from the pit of hell.
A double, nay, a triple AMEN!!!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
This is a logical fallacy commonly known as "moving the goalposts".
The claim wasn't that we should help the poor. Nobody is arguing that we shouldn't help the poor or that the 1st century church didn't help the poor.
The claim was made that social justice and care for the poor is at the hearth of the Bible's message and that the early Christians practiced redistribution of wealth. So far, neither the author, the OP, nor you have provided any Biblical evidence for this claim.
Exactly, God warned the Jews what choosing a king would do to them.
1 Sam 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
This is what the Lord thought about big government.
?? Dude, I never claimed that that was the heart of the Bible's message. Did you actually read my first post?
You were agreeing with the OP and went on to say "Example...redistribution of wealth...yes, you could say the early church practiced it."
I agreed with the OP up to only a certain extent. I am not a progressive or a liberal.
What I meant by that statement was that, yes, the early church must have helped the poor. I guess it could depend upon what the exact definition of "redistribution of wealth" is. If it's merely helping the poor, then yes the church practiced it. If it's something different, then I should have checked the definition before using it.
I felt that it was unfairly being assumed in the article that the religious political right does not care about the poor. Well, I'm in the Bible belt surrounded by social conservatives, and I know this isn't true. Many churches and church people here have or are involved in programs to give some manner of assistance to those who need it.
You said, "Example...redistribution of wealth...yes, you could say the early church practiced it."
Do you have any verses from scripture indicate that the Church practiced redistribution of wealth?
Redistribution of wealth, meaning...?
Apparently I used the phrase inappropriately in my first post, so I'll need to know what it's definition is before I can really answer.
See, when I wrote the post, I was responding directly to the article. It used the term "redistribution of wealth", which it apparently took to mean--as did I--helping the poor. My response was intended to be something along the lines of, "I guess you could say that..."
According to wiktionary the definition of "redistribution of wealth" is taxation, which...obviously is different than giving assistance to the poor. It's giving the government money, which the government uses for different things. Some of which might involve funding welfare programs. But that's the government, not the church.
So...that's not what I meant in my first post and I misused the phrase.
What I meant was that the church did help the poor, and as to scriptural proof of that, I already answered the question. As you said, there's no dispute that they did or that we should.
So what's the point you're intending to drive at?
It was perhaps more than giving to the poor. Those who believed began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all as any had need (Acts 2:46). None of them claimed ownership of their belongings, but all things were common property to them (Acts 4:32).
I think it obvious that their possessions were redistributed among them as any had need - it was a redistribution of wealth. But we tend to think of redistribution of wealth being imposed upon the individual (which wouldn’t be the case in Acts where they acted in love).
That your claim that the 1st century Church practiced redistribution of wealth is an Obamunist talking point without a lick of evidence to back it up.
That's charity, not redistribution of wealth.
And as I said, I found out that I completely misused the term. You seem to think I agree/d with the article's and OP's liberal slant. I don't. I'm a libertarian. We advocate private charities.