France Elects Socialist President

[jasonp]

But true.

I tend to disagree...Of course your opinion is based on rock solid emotion...err logic, while mine is just wishy washy fuzzy math based on faulty logic and desire to please my corporate masters (put's little finger to corner of mouth).

[BG42EDGE]

As the saying goes, "Am I going to believe you--or my lying eyes?"

[Preacher Man]

Come now, lets not start finding people guilty of things here......that would be unfriendly.

I mentioned the followers of Jesus, not Christians. They had a commune going and weren't called Christians until later.

Actually, they were what we call today Christians. They were called several names starting with with "Those of the Way" to eventually Christians, but they were all elements or parts of the same historical group. Wouldn't it be better, and avoid latter misunderstandings, to clearly present what you want to say from the beginning?

[BG42EDGE]

I did clearly present it. They were the followers of Jesus and were not called Christians until later.

That's a fact.

Things started to downhill at that point, but they did have their brief and shining moment of communism.

[BlackKnight86]

Come now, lets not start finding people guilty of things here......that would be unfriendly.

I mentioned the followers of Jesus, not Christians. They had a commune going and weren't called Christians until later.

I understand what you are trying to say; but you are limiting your definition without saying that you are. In common usage, "followers of Jesus" is one description of what a Christian is. I am a follower of Jesus. I wouldn't be a socialist to save my own life. I understand that it may not be common in everyone's usage; but it would not be unreasonable to expect that someone as well-read as you apparently are would know that. You were very general when you first said it; it might have helped if you included your citation when you first said it.

And you also, as someone else pointed out, only included a single example. Do you really think you can extrapolate to all followers of Jesus, even back then? Do you have the evidence to back it up? Are you now regarding the Bible as an historically accurate account; because in other posts you didn't seem to think that?

[eyeeatingfish]

Everybody who wasn't seriously brain-damaged was against Bush spending trillions on wars while failing to first fund those wars.

The spending attributed to Obama is in reality spending on the wars and bail outs to fix the mess Bush created.

This is not hard to see if you look at it with unbiased eyes.

Except that Obama just poured gasoline on the fire rather than seriously reign in the excessive spending.

[BG42EDGE]

I think you mean rein in......and he did rein in spending without pouring any gasoline anywhere.

[BG42EDGE]

I understand what you are trying to say; but you are limiting your definition without saying that you are. In common usage, "followers of Jesus" is one description of what a Christian is. I am a follower of Jesus. I wouldn't be a socialist to save my own life. I understand that it may not be common in everyone's usage; but it would not be unreasonable to expect that someone as well-read as you apparently are would know that. You were very general when you first said it; it might have helped if you included your citation when you first said it.

And you also, as someone else pointed out, only included a single example. Do you really think you can extrapolate to all followers of Jesus, even back then? Do you have the evidence to back it up? Are you now regarding the Bible as an historically accurate account; because in other posts you didn't seem to think that?

Some of the Bible is historically accurate.

And yes, all the followers of Jesus were together at that time according to that particular yarn.

[Preacher Man]

Some of the Bible is historically accurate.

And yes, all the followers of Jesus were together at that time according to that particular yarn.

Actually, that is historically wrong. Christian communities in other areas outside of Jerusalem started immediately after Pentecost. The term follower of Jesus is synonymous with Christian. Maybe you need to better clarify what you mean. But again, IMHO a more accurate modern descriptor for what we see at the end of Acts 3 is a social net.

[BlackKnight86]

[bold mine]
Some of the Bible is historically accurate.

And yes, all the followers of Jesus were together at that time according to that particular yarn.

May I ask how you are adjudicating which parts?

Also, do I need to explain the irony between the bolded parts; or are you going to tell me you did that on purpose?

But again, IMHO a more accurate modern descriptor for what we see at the end of Acts 3 is a social net.

I think this part bears repeating. Nowhere in the Biblical citation provided by BG42EDGE is their any mention of requirement. If the people in the citation did what they did voluntarily, that is not considered communism or socialism.

[BG42EDGE]

You like to call it a social net, I call it communism.

The term follower of Jesus is not synonymous with Christian. I myself am a follower of Jesus, but I'd regard it as an insult to be called a Christian.

Actually, I'm historically right.

Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39“For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” 40And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation!” 41So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. 42They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

43Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. 44And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; 45and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. 46Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.

[BG42EDGE]

If the people in the citation did what they did voluntarily, that is not considered communism or socialism.

You have the right to your own opinion about that.

[BG42EDGE]

But not your own facts.

From Webster:

Definition of COMMUNISM
1
a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed.

[quietmike]

So you've voluntarily given up your possessions for the common good, or are you waiting for something?

[jasonp]

So you've voluntarily given up your possessions for the common good, or are you waiting for something?

Now now sir...a REAL Socialist want YOU to give up your possessions for the common good not themselves.

[Preacher Man]

You like to call it a social net, I call it communism.

The problem I have with calling this communism is that Liberation Theology does just that to justify a Marxist revisionism of the whole Bible and Christian theology. They take these verses as a justification to use political theory as the foundation for theology. That may not be your intention, but this is a serious issue both in theology and Philosophy of Religion.

The term follower of Jesus is not synonymous with Christian. I myself am a follower of Jesus, but I'd regard it as an insult to be called a Christian.

It is not my intent to insult you, or question the sincerity of your beliefs. If you feel I have insulted you in any way, please accept my apologies. You can choose to call or refer to your own beliefs as you seem fit. But please understand that your preference can't change the fact that through the centuries, and actually as seen in the Biblical text, official roman communications, and academic discussions, follower of Jesus was and still is synonymous with Christian. You can use the phrase as you wish, but the phrase has an accepted theological and academic use. Christians were referred to as those who Follow Jesus (Like 22:49), Those of the Way (Acts 24:14), and finally Christians (Acts 11:26). In official Roman communications, Christians are referred to in chronological order of the sources as "Foreign Superstition" (Tacitus, Annals, xiii. 32), Christians (Tacitus, Annals, xv. 44), followers of "Chrestus" (Suetonius, Vita Claudii, xxv. 4), and so on. I will keep your preference in mind and I give you my word I will not call you or refer to you as a Christian, but I can't change accepted theological and academic terminology for your sake.

Actually, I'm historically right.

I agree with you that these events happened, but I disagree with you that these verses tell us everything that was happening at that time. Latter verses in acts and the epistles describe how intermediately after Pentecosts, the Jews and gentile converts to Judaism that came from other parts or the world (Acts 2:8-12) for the Pentecost celebration, returned to their cities and countries and started sharing Christ and expanding the church. So no, these verses do not describe the only Christian community of its time. But you have every right to your opinion, and of course, you are not the only one who holds this view. All this been said, I think we are digressing from the OP.

[BG42EDGE]

I will keep your preference in mind and I give you my word I will not call you or refer to you as a Christian, but I can't change accepted theological and academic terminology for your sake.

Since accepted theological and academic terminology is just more opinion, I don't want you to change anything because it would be meaningless.

...this is a serious issue both in theology and Philosophy of Religion.

I hope they don't lose too much sleep over it. Myself, I wish them luck with their profound and painful struggles. What a way to make a buck.

Latter verses in acts and the epistles describe how intermediately after Pentecosts, the Jews and gentile converts to Judaism that came from other parts or the world (Acts 2:8-12) for the Pentecost celebration, returned to their cities and countries and started sharing Christ and expanding the church. So no, these verses do not describe the only Christian community of its time.

That's just more opinion. I suppose I could remind you that you haven't backed any of that up by posting your "Latter verses in acts and the epistles" and "intermediately" is too slow for your proposed scenario, but, what the heck......I'm a merciful guy, being a follower of Jesus.

[Preacher Man]

Since accepted theological and academic terminology is just more opinion, I don't want you to change anything because it would be meaningless.


I hope they don't lose too much sleep over it. Myself, I wish them luck with their profound and painful struggles. What a way to make a buck.


That's just more opinion. I suppose I could remind you that you haven't backed any of that up by posting your "Latter verses in acts and the epistles" and "intermediately" is too slow for your proposed scenario, but, what the heck......I'm a merciful guy, being a follower of Jesus.

We could continue to debate this, and I could provide all the information you wish. This is a legitimate area of academic study and I earn part of my living consulting, researching, and writing on theological and religious issues. I do loose some sleep over this kind of thing, but not because I worry about it but because I've had clients looking for help to meet looming deadlines.

But once everything is said and done, the details we are now discussing are not really the topic of the thread. If you wish to further discuss the relation between Christianity and communism, from a political point of view, you could start a thread on this. I do appreciate your willingness to allow the thread to move along.

[BlackKnight86]

The term follower of Jesus is not synonymous with Christian.

Wikipedia
The Greek word Χριστιανός (christianos)—meaning "follower of Christ"—comes from Χριστός (christos)—meaning "anointed one"—with an adjectival ending borrowed from Latin to denote adhering to, or even belonging to, as in slave ownership.

"As the saying goes, 'Am I going to believe you--or my lying eyes?' "

But not your own facts.

From Webster:

Definition of COMMUNISM
1
a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed.

Of the two of us, only I am applying that definition correctly. Read your own citation:

Acts Chapter 4: [bold and underline mine]

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

The only people fully able to donate goods and money are those who exercise full dominion over them. Ownership of private property is a key element in charitable giving; otherwise one would require permission from the co-owners. Individuals cannot give away common property without authorization from the collective; and the collective does not need permission from individuals to give it away. The passage from Acts is clear English - the individuals who owned lands or houses exercised their dominion over their property up to the point where they transferred said ownership to the apostles for charitable distribution. It's no different from me putting my own private property in the donation boxes at church.

As to what the believers claimed....they can claim anything they want. If they regard their possessions as owned by the group, that is their right. The operative difference between this situation and communism is the exercise of individual human free will.

[Preacher Man]

"As the saying goes, 'Am I going to believe you--or my lying eyes?' "

I appreciate the clarification. There are other elements that can be clarified, but it is time for the thread to get back on topic.