The Economic Agenda of the Kingdom of God [Archive]

iwayne

May 21st 2005, 03:17 PM

Arnold

May 21st 2005, 03:33 PM

There are more millionaire Democrat senators than there are Republicans.

But your assumption about that psalm 24 verse stretches it pretty far. Important doctrines can be corroborated with other supporting verses. Got any?

On the other side of the argument in many of Jesus' parables He portrays God as a land owner or rich person. Many disciples in the gospels were rich. For someone who wrote a book about this you seem to have a rather shallow reservoire of knowledge.

You don't seem concerned about biblical princple, but more about partisan politics. This should be in the poly sci forum.

Hitch

May 21st 2005, 03:40 PM

Yawn,,,because ,as usual, you left out everything the Scriptures teach regarding private property.

Now if you want to discuss whether the poor are abused more by the left or the right you will again be disappointed to find that God's care for the poor begins with private and personal charity from the perspective of private land ownership. And continues built on the principles that free men own their land ,homes and means of production. The very poor were allowed to glean the fields, ie they were allowed by personal hard labor to gather that wihch was normally leftover. This protects the landowner while at the same time aiding thepoor with basic needs and providing strong encouragement toward bettering ones position.

Arnold

May 21st 2005, 03:51 PM

There was no separation of church and state in biblical days. The above admonitions, one from the OT, one from the NT, are for the Nation of Israel. God made it clear that He would not tolerate the abuse of the poor (fatherless and widowed) by the more advantaged. This policy was an important part of the original kingdom of God set up under Moses and strongly reinforced by Jesus in the NT in his efforts to reestablish that kingdom:

Blessed are you poor
for yours is the kingdom of God

I am curious - do you believe we should obey Christ's commandments?

Arnold

May 21st 2005, 03:54 PM

Arnold

May 22nd 2005, 12:34 PM

[to iwayne] I am curious - do you believe we should obey Christ's commandments?

I saw that you do not believe the Bible is the Word of God in your The Real God thread. So why did you couch your premise in this thread with Scripture? You obviously are very poorly informed about Scripture. Is that how you write your books - pretending to have knowledge that you in fact do not have? You seem to have this idea that Christians are a bunch of pushovers - you will soon learn otherwise.

I see you are new to forum discussions - a little word of advise: It is pretty easy to get away with making bald assertions without evidence or knowledge when writing and self-publishing a book with no one to answer to, but in a forum you will have to back up your assertions, so perhaps you may wish to stick to things you actually have some expertise in...

Hitch

May 22nd 2005, 12:42 PM

I saw that you do not believe the Bible is the Word of God in your The Real God thread. So why did you couch your premise in this thread with Scripture? You obviously are very poorly informed about Scripture. Is that how you write your books - pretending to have knowledge that you in fact do not have? You seem to have this idea that Christians are a bunch of pushovers - you will soon learn otherwise.

I see you are new to forum discussions - a little word of advise: It is pretty easy to get away with making bald assertions without evidence or knowledge when writing and self-publishing a book with no one to answer to, but in a forum you will have to back up your assertions, so perhaps you may wish to stick to things you actually have some expertise in...My guess. Its a college project

Captain Ochre

May 22nd 2005, 01:14 PM

I am fairly new to this forum, so save me some time if this subject has been covered before by directing me to the proper forum.

I recently published a book entitled Scripture. Its subtitle is

Its political, economic and spiritual force

One of the ideas I tried to develop in the book (in the chapter titled Biblical Economics) centers around the strong economic implications in the Bible. Yes, I know, the word "economics" is not in the Bible, but I feel nonetheless that it is filled with very strong economic persuasions. The way I understand it, economics is ultimately based on resources.

Resources figure in, but economics is actually based on work, and work is essentially something that you do that has value to somebody else. Resources in economics are usually traded as symbols of the value of work ($5.35 was the symbol of one hour's work by somebody making minimum wage, for example).

In fact, we could probably define economics as a system for managing ressources, specifically the sharing and distribution of those resources. I don't remember if I've ever looked it up in a concordance, but I don't believe the word "resources" is in the Bible either.

I'll bet the word "work" appears in some form, however.
:smile:
The ANE slavery system illustrates the point. Today, you can use a credit card to buy things with value you have not yet produced with your work. Similarly, in the ANE one could sell the future work of a family member by selling them into slavery (which of course was not chattel slavery but in principle the same thing as using credit).

And if it is, it probably isn't used in an economic sense. But although the word is not there, resources are clearly referred to, in Psalms 24:

The earth is the Lord's
and the fullness thereof.

Resources are all derived from the planet we live on. The Bible clearly states that that planet belongs to God, and the fullness thereof.

The point is really simple. All wealth is derived from resources.

Unfortunately, the point is simply wrong. Sure, we can credit God even for our ability to work, but God himself gave us the commandment not to steal, which is nonsensical without a concept of property that goes beyond God owning absolutely everything.

It doesn't matter how clever you are, how well educated or what kind of entrepreneurial skills you are blessed with. If you have become wealthy you have done so with the resources of this planet. But according to the Bible you don't own the resources of this planet. God does.

Right, but those resources are also a symbol of work, and those symbols tend to be recognized by other men. On top of that God seems to recognize the utility of private property by recognizing it implicitly through an awareness of the sins of stealing and covetousness.

The earth is the Lord's
and the fullness thereof.

The argument could therefore be made that all of your wealth actually belongs to God, because you used His resources to become wealthy.

It could be compared to you finding a nice piece of land somewhere and planting, let's say tomatoes, and then selling your tomatoes and making a lot of money. Say I come along one day and find you selling your tomatoes by the roadside. Let's also say that I own the land that you grew your tomatoes on. I have every right to look at you and what you're doing and say, "That money you made from growing and selling tomatoes is mine. I have every right to confiscate all of your product and all of your earnings. What you accompished here - on my land - is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is the fact that the property is mine."

Legally, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

You wouldn't, either!
:lol:
You can't just walk up and take away my tomato money. You could sue me for it, but you'd probably only be able to recoup a reasonable lease price for the land so used and the cost of restoring the land if the farming project caused some residual damage that would involve cost.

The bible clearly suggests an unassailable economic principle:

The resources don't belong to anyone, but we all have to use them.

You seem to be taking a statement of God's sovereignty and turning it into a supposed "unassailable economic principle". Knowing that the Earth is the Lord's tells you absolutely nothing about how the resources should be managed, nor even whether or not you have a right to manage those resources.
Go back to Genesis, however, and you find that Adam and Eve are given dominion over the Earth on behalf of mankind. It is in this sense of dominion, I believe, that Adam and Eve are primarily said to be in the image of God (one particular area where I think that LDS doctrine is actually close to being correct, incidentally).

All wealth is derived from resources. If someone becomes wealthy, they do so with something that doesn't belong to them, with the blessings of a government that allows it.

Am I a resource? Do I have any right (under God) to determine by whom I will be used as a resource?
If I'm not a resource in that sense, then who owns the work that I do?

If a government does nothing else, it should strictly manage its resources to the benefit of all its citizens.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!
If men can't own the resources belonging to God, then what gives the government the right to manage "its" resources?

This economic principle is also in the Bible:

Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. If you do, and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless. (Exodus 22)

:huh:
Doe it take advantage of a widow if the government doesn't give her an equal share in the resources that the government somehow gained the right to manage?
Explain how that principle is illustrated by the text, please.

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (Letter of James)

So the government can just send her visitors instead of deeding her some land in the Sacramento Valley?
I'm afraid your scripture citations did little more than confuse whatever point you're trying to make.

There was no separation of church and state in biblical days. The above admonitions, one from the OT, one from the NT, are for the Nation of Israel. God made it clear that He would not tolerate the abuse of the poor (fatherless and widowed) by the more advantaged.

Seems to me the verses indicate that God would not tolerate abuse of the widow even by the less advantaged ...

This policy was an important part of the original kingdom of God set up under Moses and strongly reinforced by Jesus in the NT in his efforts to reestablish that kingdom:

Blessed are you poor
for yours is the kingdom of God

Having said this, I would like to ask the Christians who participate in this forum why they invariably support the Republican party, a party which clearly indicates that

Blessed are you rich
for yours is the kingdom of God?

I guess you're not going to explain to us why the Mosaic law set up a taxation system that asked 10% from the citizen regardless of whether he was rich or poor.
As for your question, we have quite a few in this forum who support the Democratic Party even though the Democratic Party is at the forefront of secularizing the government (which doesn't appear to jibe with your lauding of the lack of separation of church and state during the course of your screed above).
The rich are blessed (Job was considered blessed based on his material assets), but the Republican Party hardly claims to control access to the gates of heaven (depending on how you mean us to interpret "the kingdom of God").

I wonder is this the same liberal Wayne who formerly posted under a different name?

Arnold

May 22nd 2005, 02:43 PM

Well argued Captain. :thumb:

iwayne

May 23rd 2005, 07:02 AM

I am curious - do you believe we should obey Christ's commandments?

I don't believe in "christ" let alone christ's commandments. The word "christ" only exists in our culture because the NT was written in Greek. If it had been written in Hebrew we'd be saying messiah and referring to messianity instead of christianity. Messianity is an idea that developed during the intertestamental period. Contrary to what most "christians" believe, the OT does not contain any promises of a messiah. Other than the two instances of the word (messiah) in Daniel, a book which probably should not even be in the OT due to its lateness (circa 160 BCE), there is no specific mention of the concept anywhere else in the OT. Messianity is an idea that the people came up with, not anything that God himself ever talked about. Messianity is a people idea, not a God idea.

Captain Ochre

May 23rd 2005, 05:41 PM

Yo, Wayne.
Do you answer critiques or are you more interested in simply advertising your books?

Vivian

May 23rd 2005, 09:16 PM

I don't believe in "christ" let alone christ's commandments. The word "christ" only exists in our culture because the NT was written in Greek. If it had been written in Hebrew we'd be saying messiah and referring to messianity instead of christianity. Messianity is an idea that developed during the intertestamental period. Contrary to what most "christians" believe, the OT does not contain any promises of a messiah. Other than the two instances of the word (messiah) in Daniel, a book which probably should not even be in the OT due to its lateness (circa 160 BCE), there is no specific mention of the concept anywhere else in the OT. Messianity is an idea that the people came up with, not anything that God himself ever talked about. Messianity is a people idea, not a God idea.

Actually, iwayne, the Jewish idea of the Messiah predates the intertestamental period. It is contained within the Kaballah/Zohar, whose oral tradition is traced back to Abraham. It is also talked of in the books of Enoch. Enoch being the grandfather of Noah.

If we extend our search, we will find that the idea of Messiahs or Messengers of God coming to show mankind the way to salvation exists beyond the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Buddha and Krishna were two such Messengers. (Some religious traditions call them Avatars.)

From the Bhagavad-Gita...

"When Dharma, - righteousness, law - decays, when Adharma - unrighteousness, lawlessness - is exalted, then I Myself come forth: for the protection of the good, for the destruction of the evil, for the establishing firmly of Dharma, I am born from age to age".

vivian

iwayne

May 24th 2005, 06:49 AM

Yo, Wayne.
Do you answer critiques or are you more interested in simply advertising your books?

Do you mean critiques of the essays?

iwayne

May 24th 2005, 09:30 AM

Resources figure in, but economics is actually based on work, and work is essentially something that you do that has value to somebody else. Resources in economics are usually traded as symbols of the value of work ($5.35 was the symbol of one hour's work by somebody making minimum wage, for example).

I'll bet the word "work" appears in some form, however.
:smile:
The ANE slavery system illustrates the point. Today, you can use a credit card to buy things with value you have not yet produced with your work. Similarly, in the ANE one could sell the future work of a family member by selling them into slavery (which of course was not chattel slavery but in principle the same thing as using credit).

Unfortunately, the point is simply wrong. Sure, we can credit God even for our ability to work, but God himself gave us the commandment not to steal, which is nonsensical without a concept of property that goes beyond God owning absolutely everything.

Right, but those resources are also a symbol of work, and those symbols tend to be recognized by other men. On top of that God seems to recognize the utility of private property by recognizing it implicitly through an awareness of the sins of stealing and covetousness.

You wouldn't, either!
:lol:
You can't just walk up and take away my tomato money. You could sue me for it, but you'd probably only be able to recoup a reasonable lease price for the land so used and the cost of restoring the land if the farming project caused some residual damage that would involve cost.

You seem to be taking a statement of God's sovereignty and turning it into a supposed "unassailable economic principle". Knowing that the Earth is the Lord's tells you absolutely nothing about how the resources should be managed, nor even whether or not you have a right to manage those resources.
Go back to Genesis, however, and you find that Adam and Eve are given dominion over the Earth on behalf of mankind. It is in this sense of dominion, I believe, that Adam and Eve are primarily said to be in the image of God (one particular area where I think that LDS doctrine is actually close to being correct, incidentally).

Am I a resource? Do I have any right (under God) to determine by whom I will be used as a resource?
If I'm not a resource in that sense, then who owns the work that I do?

Whoa, whoa, whoa!
If men can't own the resources belonging to God, then what gives the government the right to manage "its" resources?

:huh:
Doe it take advantage of a widow if the government doesn't give her an equal share in the resources that the government somehow gained the right to manage?
Explain how that principle is illustrated by the text, please.

So the government can just send her visitors instead of deeding her some land in the Sacramento Valley?
I'm afraid your scripture citations did little more than confuse whatever point you're trying to make.

Seems to me the verses indicate that God would not tolerate abuse of the widow even by the less advantaged ...

I guess you're not going to explain to us why the Mosaic law set up a taxation system that asked 10% from the citizen regardless of whether he was rich or poor.
As for your question, we have quite a few in this forum who support the Democratic Party even though the Democratic Party is at the forefront of secularizing the government (which doesn't appear to jibe with your lauding of the lack of separation of church and state during the course of your screed above).
The rich are blessed (Job was considered blessed based on his material assets), but the Republican Party hardly claims to control access to the gates of heaven (depending on how you mean us to interpret "the kingdom of God").

I wonder is this the same liberal Wayne who formerly posted under a different name?

1. not the same wayne

2. my objective is the criticism of the average gun-toting redneck christian republicans who support the platform primarily because of its stance on abortion and gay marriage. I believe voting decisions should be based more on economic policies than moral agendas. I am not gay (trust me), but I would not base my decision to vote for someone just because they happened to support the right to gay marriage. I am not a christian either, but I know something about christianity (I used to be one), at least what it ostensibly represents. When Jesus promoted the kingdom of God he was not talking about going to heaven. He was talking about re-establishing the same kingdom that Moses had set up , the one that had so miserably failed. He was talking about setting up a kingdom on the earth, in the same spot where it had previously been set up. One of the things he clearly said about that kingdom was that it would be nigh impossible for a rich man to enter it. He plainly stated that it belonged to the poor, not the poor in spirit as the tax-collector Matthew tries to have us believe. It's true, there may be as many wealthy Democrats as Republicans in the Senate, maybe more, but that fact alone is irrelevant. Whether they mean it or not, the Democrats are at least talking about taking care of the less advantaged. The Republicans do everything they can to pad the wallets of the wealthy.

By the way, your comments on labor did not go unnoticed by the author of the 24th psalm. The remainder of the verse mentions human labor:

The earth is the Lord's
and all its fullness
The world
and those who dwell therein.

The resources and the labor necessary to develop them both belong to God. According to the preaching of Jesus, it is easy to get the impression that if he had succeeded in setting up the kingdom in the way he had in mind, that both the resources and the labor would have been managed accordingly, as if they both belonged to God. The result would be an equal distribution of those resources regardless of the nature of work. In other words, doctors (if there would even be doctors in the kingdom of God) would not receive more pay for their services than teachers or car mechanics. Same for lawyers, heads of state, entrepreneurs or anyone else.

Arnold

May 24th 2005, 09:38 AM

Do you mean critiques of the essays?

No he meant can you deal with the issues brought up by your opponents on this thread. You have just ignored almost everything we have said. Do you want a discussion or do you just wish to preach?

Arnold

May 24th 2005, 09:43 AM

2. my objective is the criticism of the average gun-toting redneck christian republicans who support the platform primarily because of its stance on abortion and gay marriage. I believe voting decisions should be based more on economic policies than moral agendas. I am not gay (trust me), but I would not base my decision to vote for someone just because they happened to support the right to gay marriage. I am not a christian either, but I know something about christianity (I used to be one), at least what it ostensibly represents. When Jesus promoted the kingdom of God he was not talking about going to heaven. He was talking about re-establishing the same kingdom that Moses had set up , the one that had so miserably failed. He was talking about setting up a kingdom on the earth, in the same spot where it had previously been set up. One of the things he clearly said about that kingdom was that it would be nigh impossible for a rich man to enter it. He plainly stated that it belonged to the poor, not the poor in spirit as the tax-collector Matthew tries to have us believe. It's true, there may be as many wealthy Democrats as Republicans in the Senate, maybe more, but that fact alone is irrelevant. Whether they mean it or not, the Democrats are at least talking about taking care of the less advantaged. The Republicans do everything they can to pad the wallets of the wealthy.

I was right then - this is just a partisan political attack.

By the way, your comments on labor did not go unnoticed by the author of the 24th psalm. The remainder of the verse mentions human labor:

The earth is the Lord's
and all its fullness
The world
and those who dwell therein.

The resources and the labor necessary to develop them both belong to God. According to the preaching of Jesus, it is easy to get the impression that if he had succeeded in setting up the kingdom in the way he had in mind, that both the resources and the labor would have been managed accordingly, as if they both belonged to God. The result would be an equal distribution of those resources regardless of the nature of work. In other words, doctors (if there would even be doctors in the kingdom of God) would not receive more pay for their services than teachers or car mechanics. Same for lawyers, heads of state, entrepreneurs or anyone else.

Your erronious assumption has been largely refuted in posts above, but what you are describing is communism. Are you a communist?

iwayne

May 24th 2005, 11:04 AM

No he meant can you deal with the issues brought up by your opponents on this thread. You have just ignored almost everything we have said. Do you want a discussion or do you just wish to preach?

I apologize for taking so long to respond. I think I've bitten off more than I can chew. I've been posting to several threads, which I probably shouldn't do. I can't do justice to so many. I should probably concentrate on one or two.

Actually I do want a discussion. But a rational one. From what I've seen so far, the discussions so easily turn in to shouting matches. It is easy to get the feeling that "preaching" is going on in every thread I've been to. My intent is to not so much preach as to pose questions. I don't understand why so many xians support the republican party, for example. I'm asking why? Is it because of their homophobic fears? or what? I do think more attention should be given to economic issues than so-called moral ones. A person's morality is their own business so long as they're not actually hurting anyone. But a person's use of resources is not necessarily their own business. Since the resources are finite and we all have to use them, more attention needs to be focused on making sure that we all can share them.

iwayne

May 24th 2005, 11:17 AM

I was right then - this is just a partisan political attack.

Your erronious assumption has been largely refuted in posts above, but what you are describing is communism. Are you a communist?

Whether or not I am a communist is irrelevant. What matters in the context Tweb dialogue is whether or not Jesus would be communist or capitalist, a republican or a democrat. That's another thing I don't like about attitudes such as yours. It feels personal. Instead of responding to what I said, it feels like you're attacking me. It feels like you're getting personal. Your responses are also vague. You say, "Your erronious assumption," but don't clarify what you mean. What erroneous assumption are you referring to? And who are you to say that it's erroneous? Are you so sure of your own position? Whatever that may be.

Arnold

May 24th 2005, 11:55 AM

Whether or not I am a communist is irrelevant. What matters in the context Tweb dialogue is whether or not Jesus would be communist or capitalist, a republican or a democrat. That's another thing I don't like about attitudes such as yours. It feels personal. Instead of responding to what I said, it feels like you're attacking me. It feels like you're getting personal.

I asked if you were communist to see what position you are posting from. And I must say from what you have said so far on this thread you seem to be the one who is doing the attacking. You seem to want to place a guilt trip on Christians based on a couple of Bible passages and your tenuous interpretation.

Your responses are also vague. You say, "Your erronious assumption," but don't clarify what you mean. What erroneous assumption are you referring to? And who are you to say that it's erroneous? Are you so sure of your own position? Whatever that may be.

I base my conclusion that your position is erroneous based on the evidence presented in my post and those of Hitch and Captain Ochre. Why don't you deal with them? And you certainly need to provide more scriptural passages to support your position. Nebulous interpretations of a verse or two hardly amount to a cogent argument.

Or if you feel you are stretched too thin we can just drop it...

Duder

May 24th 2005, 01:16 PM

Arnold

May 24th 2005, 01:34 PM

Arnold -

Point of order . . . Why the sudden interest now in theories about things that don't exist in the real world?

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I see Christians being smeared with Scripture by someone who doesn't even believe that it is the Word of God.

Are you here to present a view or just to stir up trouble?

iwayne

May 24th 2005, 01:43 PM

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I see Christians being smeared with Scripture by someone who doesn't even believe that it is the Word of God.

Are you here to present a view or just to stir up trouble?

more irrelevancy. it doesn't matter if i believe it's the word of god or not. it only matters that they believe it. they are making the claim to believe it, not me. i happen to know what it says. i believe it says things that they are ignoring. i also believe that most of them don't even bother to read it and study it. they probably just go to a church and listen to the drivel coming from the mouth of a preacher. in case you haven't noticed, christians aren't exactly famous for thinking for themselves. if they did, they most likely wouldn't be christians.

Arnold

May 24th 2005, 01:49 PM

more irrelevancy. it doesn't matter if i believe it's the word of god or not. it only matters that they believe it. they are making the claim to believe it, not me. i happen to know what it says. i believe it says things that they are ignoring. i also believe that most of them don't even bother to read it and study it. they probably just go to a church and listen to the drivel coming from the mouth of a preacher. in case you haven't noticed, christians aren't exactly famous for thinking for themselves. if they did, they most likely wouldn't be christians.

Well now you have put it all out to see. You didn't start this thread to discuss biblical economics, but to put down Christians. You are nothing more than a bigot.

Get lost...

Amazing Rando

May 24th 2005, 01:57 PM

I rarely (if ever) agree with Arnold, but it would seem he's quite right here.

Arnold

May 24th 2005, 02:01 PM

I rarely (if ever) agree with Arnold, but it would seem he's quite right here.

And I appreciate it. Thank you for saying so.

Duder

May 24th 2005, 02:32 PM

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I see Christians being smeared with Scripture by someone who doesn't even believe that it is the Word of God.

Are you here to present a view or just to stir up trouble?

Niether. You have argued eloquntly in the past how stupid others are who are prone to discussing social, ideological theories that are not manifested in the real world. Now you've honed in on iwayne's suggestion that God is the owner of human labor, and asked if he is a communist. Presumably, you are prepared to argue against ideological communism.

Have you changed your mind about the merits of arguing political and economic theory?

Cynic Sage

May 24th 2005, 02:39 PM

Whether or not I am a communist is irrelevant. What matters in the context Tweb dialogue is whether or not Jesus would be communist or capitalist, a republican or a democrat.

Isn't that like asking "would Jesus be a Pharisee or a Sadducee"?

Arnold

May 24th 2005, 02:41 PM

Niether. You have argued eloquntly in the past how stupid others are who are prone to discussing social, ideological theories that are not manifested in the real world. Now you've honed in on iwayne's suggestion that God is the owner of human labor, and asked if he is a communist. Presumably, you are prepared to argue against ideological communism.

Have you changed your mind about the merits of arguing political and economic theory?

I don't think I characterized anyone as "stupid", just that it is generally a waste of time if one also wishes to discuss reality. The theories are so out of touch with reality that mixing them just confuses matters.

And I would not have argued theories here either. I was not asking if he was a theoretical communist, but a real one. And I do not see the economics of Scripture as theory, but as reality and real world principles.

Amazing Rando

May 24th 2005, 02:45 PM

May I ask Arnold, what sort of economic paradigm you believe is offered by Scripture? Be specific if you can. Thanks!

Duder

May 24th 2005, 02:48 PM

I don't think I characterized anyone as "stupid", just that it is generally a waste of time if one also wishes to discuss reality. The theories are so out of touch with reality that mixing them just confuses matters.

And I would not have argued theories here either. I was not asking if he was a theoretical communist, but a real one. And I do not see the economics of Scripture as theory, but as reality and real world principles.

Then I misuderstood you, thinking you wanted to get involved with abstract theories.

It's just that I would never have suspected you to believe that the "real communists" say human labor belongs to God - so I kind of thought you were getting into a theoretical area there.

Never mind, then!

Arnold

May 24th 2005, 02:59 PM

May I ask Arnold, what sort of economic paradigm you believe is offered by Scripture? Be specific if you can. Thanks!

I have to admit that I have not done any in depth study of biblical economics per se, but I do know that there are conflicting views posed in Scripture. They can be reconciled but it would take a book to explain it all.

Suffice it to say that I believe in private property and I do not believe that being rich is evil in and of itself.

Duder

May 24th 2005, 03:41 PM

I have to admit that I have not done any in depth study of biblical economics per se, but I do know that there are conflicting views posed in Scripture. They can be reconciled but it would take a book to explain it all.

Suffice it to say that I believe in private property and I do not believe that being rich is evil in and of itself.

I think that's right - you can justify whatever economic theory you like in the scriptures, including communism.

I'm still interested in your idea that the real communists are the ones who believe labor belongs to God.

Jesus Christ was a man
That wandered through the land,
Hard workin' man and brave -
He said to the rich, give your goods to the poor,
So they laid Jesus Christ in His grave

Jesus was a man,
A carpenter by hand,
His followers true and brave -
One dirty coward
Called Judas Iscariot
Laid Jesus Christ in His grave

He went to the preacher,
He went to the Church,
Told them all the same -
Sell all of your jewelry
And give it to the poor,
So they laid Jesus Christ in His grave

When Jesus come to town,
The workin' folks around
Believed what He did say -
The bankers and the preachers,
They nailed Him on a cross,
And they laid Jesus Christ in His grave

Now the workin' people
Followed Him around,
Sang and shouted gay -
But the cops and the soldiers
Nailed him in the air,
And they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

The people held their breath
When they heard about His death,
Everybody wondered why -
It was the landlord
And the soldiers that he hired
Who nailed Jesus Christ in the sky

This song was made
In New York City,
Of rich men, preachers and slaves -
If Jesus was to preach
Like He preached in Galilee
They would lay Jesus Christ in His grave

- Woody Guthrie

Would you say that guys like Woody are the real communists?

Arnold

May 24th 2005, 03:51 PM

I'm still interested in your idea that the real communists are the ones who believe labor belongs to God.

Duder you said "Never mind, then!" above, so I didn't bother to answer you further.

I don't think "that the real communists are the ones who believe labor belongs to God." Most contemporary communists are atheists - Soviet Union, China, Cuba, N. Korea.

I suppose some domestic communists may have some sort of belief in a god, but it would be news to me. If some would claim that labor belongs to god I would suspect they were attempting some sort of cult following.

Arnold

May 24th 2005, 03:55 PM

I think that's right - you can justify whatever economic theory you like in the scriptures, including communism.

I do not think that "you can justify whatever economic theory you like in the scriptures", but it is not easily summarized.

Duder

May 24th 2005, 04:04 PM

Duder you said "Never mind, then!" above, so I didn't bother to answer you further.

No, I meant "never mind" about my mistake in thinking you wanted to slip into the error of theorizing.

I don't think "that the real communists are the ones who believe labor belongs to God." Most contemporary communists are atheists - Soviet Union, China, Cuba, N. Korea.

This is hard to reconcile. You wanted to focus on real communists, and not theoretical ones. You're telling me that the real communists do not think that labor belongs to God. So why is it, when iwayne said that labor belongs to God, it caused you to suspect he was a real communist?

Arnold

May 24th 2005, 04:09 PM

No, I meant "never mind" about my mistake in thinking you wanted to slip into the error of theorizing.

This is hard to reconcile. You wanted to focus on real communists, and not theoretical ones. You're telling me that the real communists do not think that labor belongs to God. So why is it, when iwayne said that labor belongs to God, it caused you to suspect he was a real communist?

This is just to be irritating isn't it?

Duder

May 24th 2005, 04:18 PM

This just to be irritating isn't it?

Yes, you probably did want to irritate iwayne by calling him a communist. But you probably didn't irritate him much if your claim was prima fascia absurd and self-contradictory.

It appears that "are you a communist?" was nothing more than an example of your habitual bullying tactics.

Arnold

May 24th 2005, 04:23 PM

Yes, you probably did want to irritate iwayne by calling him a communist. But you probably didn't irritate him much if your claim was prima fascia absurd and self-contradictory.

It appears that "are you a communist?" was nothing more than an example of your habitual bullying tactics.

It was a question, not an assertion.

Bye fly

Duder

May 24th 2005, 04:29 PM

Bye fly

Ah, drop an epithet and leave it a that. If I may, I'd like to remind you of your own wisdom:

Typical liberal response - can't deal with the substance of an argument, so make a personal attack.

Are you a liberal, Arnold?

iwayne

May 24th 2005, 04:48 PM

Well now you have put it all out to see. You didn't start this thread to discuss biblical economics, but to put down Christians. You are nothing more than a bigot.

Get lost...

a bigot? how do you figure? i know something about christians. i used to be in their camp, listed in their ranks. i know what followers they are, how they're acting on little more than fear, how they don't think their own thoughts. trust me, these are not empty claims. i grew up going to church and even graduated from a church college. what i say is not based on bigotry. it's based on personal experience. why do you think the congregation is called a flock and the preacher a shepherd? the flock is bunch of following obedient sheep, most of whom lack the brain power to think an original thought, and if they did have the brain power, they'd be too scared to express the thought. they'd probably get on their knees and ask their falsely perceived god to forgive them for their sinful mind.

Duder

May 24th 2005, 05:02 PM

a bigot? how do you figure? i know something about christians. i used to be in their camp, listed in their ranks. i know what followers they are, how they're acting on little more than fear, how they don't think their own thoughts. trust me, these are not empty claims. i grew up going to church and even graduated from a church college. what i say is not based on bigotry. it's based on personal experience. why do you think the congregation is called a flock and the preacher a shepherd? the flock is bunch of following obedient sheep, most of whom lack the brain power to think an original thought, and if they did have the brain power, they'd be too scared to express the thought. they'd probably get on their knees and ask their falsely perceived god to forgive them for their sinful mind.

Don't make me regret sticking up for you.

Jesus is called the shepard, and I have known some Christians with enough cajones to take on their preachers, their churches and their denominations because of their ideals about what is the will of Jesus.

Arnold

May 24th 2005, 05:05 PM

Don't make me regret sticking up for you.

:lmbo:

Duder

May 24th 2005, 05:07 PM

:lmbo:Don't get cocky - you ain't off the hook . . .

Cynic Sage

May 24th 2005, 05:09 PM

why do you think the congregation is called a flock and the preacher a shepherd? the flock is bunch of following obedient sheep, most of whom lack the brain power to think an original thought, and if they did have the brain power, they'd be too scared to express the thought. they'd probably get on their knees and ask their falsely perceived god to forgive them for their sinful mind.

IIRC, the metaphor refers to how Middle eastern shepherds have to take care of their sheep for their owner.

And don't over-generalize. Just because you were a brain-dead fundie xtian doesn't mean all of us are. I can say stuff about agnosticism based on my "life experience" but that doesn't mean I have accurately represented another's position. Excesseive generalization is a petty mind's excuse not to think.

iwayne

May 25th 2005, 08:10 AM

IIRC, the metaphor refers to how Middle eastern shepherds have to take care of their sheep for their owner.

And don't over-generalize. Just because you were a brain-dead fundie xtian doesn't mean all of us are. I can say stuff about agnosticism based on my "life experience" but that doesn't mean I have accurately represented another's position. Excesseive generalization is a petty mind's excuse not to think.

Maybe all of you aren't, but I'd be willing to bet that at least ninety percent of you are, which is enough to justify the generalization. Ninety percent of all christians in this country is a lot of votes. It is my opinion that voting decisions should be based more on economic issues than moral ones. It is my contention that the vast majority of sheep who call themselves christians voted for the conservative agenda on the basis of their moral code instead of their position on the economy. I say leave a person's moral agenda up to them and God (as long as they're not actually hurting anyone). Vote for the party that you believe is going to act more responsibly about taking care of the resources, both material and human. Stop worrying so much about whether your same-gender next door neighbors are having sex, which is none of your business, and start worrying about how the resources of our land are being managed, which is your business. No one owns the resources, but we all have to use them. We have to use resources, but we don't have to meddle in someone else's personal affairs, no matter how offensive those affairs may happen to be to our aesthetic or moral sensibilities.

Captain Ochre

May 25th 2005, 10:15 AM

I think that's right - you can justify whatever economic theory you like in the scriptures, including communism.

I'm still interested in your idea that the real communists are the ones who believe labor belongs to God.

Jesus Christ was a man
That wandered through the land,
Hard workin' man and brave -
He said to the rich, give your goods to the poor,
So they laid Jesus Christ in His grave

Jesus was a man,
A carpenter by hand,
His followers true and brave -
One dirty coward
Called Judas Iscariot
Laid Jesus Christ in His grave

He went to the preacher,
He went to the Church,
Told them all the same -
Sell all of your jewelry
And give it to the poor,
So they laid Jesus Christ in His grave

When Jesus come to town,
The workin' folks around
Believed what He did say -
The bankers and the preachers,
They nailed Him on a cross,
And they laid Jesus Christ in His grave

Now the workin' people
Followed Him around,
Sang and shouted gay -
But the cops and the soldiers
Nailed him in the air,
And they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

The people held their breath
When they heard about His death,
Everybody wondered why -
It was the landlord
And the soldiers that he hired
Who nailed Jesus Christ in the sky

This song was made
In New York City,
Of rich men, preachers and slaves -
If Jesus was to preach
Like He preached in Galilee
They would lay Jesus Christ in His grave

- Woody Guthrie

Would you say that guys like Woody are the real communists?

Woody Guthrie was more of a socialist (though that can just be a term for a utopian, non-Marxist, communist).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Guthrie

In the squares of the city, In the shadow of a steeple;
By the relief office, I'd seen my people.
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking,
Is this land made for you and me.
and protested the institution of private ownership of land with the verse,

As I went walking, I saw a sign there;
And on the sign there, It said, 'NO TRESPASSING.'
But on the other side, It didn't say nothing.
That side was made for you and me.
In another version, the sign reads "Private Property." These verses were left out of subsequent recordings (even by Guthrie himself), turning what was a protest song into one more along the lines of then current style of patriotic songs.

Guthrie's biblical interpretations, contained in the lyrics that you cite, are questionable, BTW.
We can discuss that issue in another thread if you wish.

Captain Ochre

May 25th 2005, 10:46 AM

1. not the same wayne

Noted already, but thanks for taking the trouble to make it clear. :smile:

2. my objective is the criticism of the average gun-toting redneck christian republicans who support the platform primarily because of its stance on abortion and gay marriage.

Why shouldn't a voter support the party that agrees on the things that the particular voter finds important?
I support your right to argue that other voters don't have their voting priorities in order, of course ... but I think that you underestimate the average gun-toting redneck Christian Republican. Even those with double-digit IQ's will tend to have a justified intuitive notion regarding the social changes wrought not through the legislative process but through judical fiat after judicial fiat.

I believe voting decisions should be based more on economic policies than moral agendas. I am not gay (trust me), but I would not base my decision to vote for someone just because they happened to support the right to gay marriage.

Me, neither, but even Democratic politicians won't ususally come right out and favor gay marriage. Remember John Kerry?
You know why they won't do it? It's because a strong majority opposes it.

I am not a christian either, but I know something about christianity (I used to be one), at least what it ostensibly represents. When Jesus promoted the kingdom of God he was not talking about going to heaven. He was talking about re-establishing the same kingdom that Moses had set up , the one that had so miserably failed. He was talking about setting up a kingdom on the earth, in the same spot where it had previously been set up. One of the things he clearly said about that kingdom was that it would be nigh impossible for a rich man to enter it. He plainly stated that it belonged to the poor, not the poor in spirit as the tax-collector Matthew tries to have us believe.

So much for Job being some kind of ideal follower-of-God, eh?
I think that you're misinterpreting the words of Jesus on this issue. I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

It's true, there may be as many wealthy Democrats as Republicans in the Senate, maybe more, but that fact alone is irrelevant. Whether they mean it or not, the Democrats are at least talking about taking care of the less advantaged. The Republicans do everything they can to pad the wallets of the wealthy.

There's an important distinction, here. The Republicans do what they can to promote economic freedom. Economic freedom includes the right of persons to accumulate wealth. Speaking as a Republican, it is my view that it if more efficient and effective to allow the private sector charities to serve the needs of the poor rather than putting that responsibility in the hands of a (secular) government. We can look at the USSR and Red China for examples that are not to be followed. Stalin allowed millions to starve--deliberately as an act of the government.

By the way, your comments on labor did not go unnoticed by the author of the 24th psalm. The remainder of the verse mentions human labor:

The earth is the Lord's
and all its fullness
The world
and those who dwell therein.

http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/BIBLE/PSA/PSA24.HTM

I don't see that labor is the referrent. Rather, it seems to refer to creation with God as the author.
Perhaps you can explain your interpretation further.

The resources and the labor necessary to develop them both belong to God.

Right, but God gave over many of the things that He has made to man's possession and dominion. There are commandments that refer to the possessions of other men, for example.

According to the preaching of Jesus, it is easy to get the impression that if he had succeeded in setting up the kingdom in the way he had in mind, that both the resources and the labor would have been managed accordingly, as if they both belonged to God.

If you will discuss the matter, I will do what I can to make it more difficult for you.
:teeth:

The result would be an equal distribution of those resources regardless of the nature of work. In other words, doctors (if there would even be doctors in the kingdom of God) would not receive more pay for their services than teachers or car mechanics.

Again, I think that you have misinterpreted the words of Jesus. I do not think that your views can hold up through a rational discussion of the issue.

Same for lawyers, heads of state, entrepreneurs or anyone else.

For your reading pleasure:
http://www.web-ministry.com/religious/parables/tentalents/

Duder

May 25th 2005, 01:48 PM

Woody Guthrie was more of a socialist (though that can just be a term for a utopian, non-Marxist, communist).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Guthrie

In the squares of the city, In the shadow of a steeple;
By the relief office, I'd seen my people.
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking,
Is this land made for you and me.
and protested the institution of private ownership of land with the verse,

As I went walking, I saw a sign there;
And on the sign there, It said, 'NO TRESPASSING.'
But on the other side, It didn't say nothing.
That side was made for you and me.
In another version, the sign reads "Private Property." These verses were left out of subsequent recordings (even by Guthrie himself), turning what was a protest song into one more along the lines of then current style of patriotic songs.

Guthrie's biblical interpretations, contained in the lyrics that you cite, are questionable, BTW.

We can discuss that issue in another thread if you wish.

Hi, Cap'n -

The rarely-seen verses to "This land is your Land". Glad someone else knows them!

Actually, according to Woody's friend Pete Seeger (still living and recording), the two of them were Reds back in the early days of Okie migrant workers, Union activists and company goon squads. Seeger got himself blacklisted for it in the 50s - Woody didn't because he was spending his last years laid up in Brooklyn State Hospital.

I agree that Woody's song Jesus Christ is susceptibe to a severe theological critique. I was just trying to draw Arnold out, and not necessarily arguing for Woody's theology.

Captain Ochre

May 25th 2005, 03:20 PM

Hi, Cap'n -

The rarely-seen verses to "This land is your Land". Glad someone else knows them!

Albeit I rarely sing them ...
:wink:

Actually, according to Woody's friend Pete Seeger (still living and recording),

That means that he is now older than dirt, if I'm not mistaken.

the two of them were Reds back in the early days of Okie migrant workers, Union activists and company goon squads. Seeger got himself blacklisted for it in the 50s - Woody didn't because he was spending his last years laid up in Brooklyn State Hospital.

I'll take your word for it that Guthrie was at least temporarily of the true Marxist persuasion. I was trusting the site description, which could certainly be wrong or incomplete.

I agree that Woody's song Jesus Christ is susceptibe to a severe theological critique. I was just trying to draw Arnold out, and not necessarily arguing for Woody's theology.

Well, you old devil's advocate, you.
:teeth:

Cynic Sage

May 25th 2005, 03:22 PM

Maybe all of you aren't, but I'd be willing to bet that at least ninety percent of you are, which is enough to justify the generalization. Ninety percent of all christians in this country is a lot of votes. It is my opinion that voting decisions should be based more on economic issues than moral ones.

So people who vote for the person you don't vote for can't think for themselves?

It is my contention that the vast majority of sheep who call themselves christians voted for the conservative agenda on the basis of their moral code instead of their position on the economy. I say leave a person's moral agenda up to them and God (as long as they're not actually hurting anyone).

People are free to vote the way they see fit in a democracy.

Duder

May 25th 2005, 04:27 PM

That means that he is now older than dirt, if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, Approaching 90, I think. He was in the national news recently: While traveling to a performance engagment, the banjo he made himself 50 years ago (with the words "this machine kills fascism" on it) was stolen at an airport curbside. He never got it back, as far as I know.

He still puts on his annual strawberry festival, and you can go and be served strawberry shortcake by Pete Seeger. But his voice is all but shot. He can make a decent studio recording, but he sounds like Katherine Hepburn live.

Duder

May 25th 2005, 05:03 PM

For Cap'n -

Seeger then and now:

Captain Ochre

May 25th 2005, 11:44 PM

Heh. Thanks for the pics.
My high school humanities teacher made us listen to "Little Boxes" until we had the words memorized (and were sick of the song!).

Are we far enough off-topic yet?
:eek:

iwayne

May 28th 2005, 07:18 AM

Noted already, but thanks for taking the trouble to make it clear. :smile:

Why shouldn't a voter support the party that agrees on the things that the particular voter finds important?
I support your right to argue that other voters don't have their voting priorities in order, of course ... but I think that you underestimate the average gun-toting redneck Christian Republican. Even those with double-digit IQ's will tend to have a justified intuitive notion regarding the social changes wrought not through the legislative process but through judical fiat after judicial fiat.

Me, neither, but even Democratic politicians won't ususally come right out and favor gay marriage. Remember John Kerry?
You know why they won't do it? It's because a strong majority opposes it.

So much for Job being some kind of ideal follower-of-God, eh?
I think that you're misinterpreting the words of Jesus on this issue. I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

There's an important distinction, here. The Republicans do what they can to promote economic freedom. Economic freedom includes the right of persons to accumulate wealth. Speaking as a Republican, it is my view that it if more efficient and effective to allow the private sector charities to serve the needs of the poor rather than putting that responsibility in the hands of a (secular) government. We can look at the USSR and Red China for examples that are not to be followed. Stalin allowed millions to starve--deliberately as an act of the government.

http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/BIBLE/PSA/PSA24.HTM

I don't see that labor is the referrent. Rather, it seems to refer to creation with God as the author.
Perhaps you can explain your interpretation further.

Right, but God gave over many of the things that He has made to man's possession and dominion. There are commandments that refer to the possessions of other men, for example.

If you will discuss the matter, I will do what I can to make it more difficult for you.
:teeth:

Again, I think that you have misinterpreted the words of Jesus. I do not think that your views can hold up through a rational discussion of the issue.

For your reading pleasure:
http://www.web-ministry.com/religious/parables/tentalents/

My error was in my original post. It was too long.

My position on the matter stems from my interpretation of "kingdom of God."

I believe it was presented by Jesus as a kingdom, like all other kingdoms, on the earth, not a kingdom in heaven. I do not believe that Jesus was speaking about heaven, or going to heaven, as the popular jargon has it, when he spoke of the kingdom. I recently completed a critique of the gospel of Matthew in which I dealt repeatedly with this issue. As you probably know, Matthew uses the phrase "kingdom of heaven" instead of "kingdom of
God." His semitic convictions, and little more, are behind this. I'm sure that you are also aware of Jewish sensibilities with respect to God's name. The kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are, therefore, the same thing, just dressed up in different attire. The kingdom of God is so named because of its original establishment under Moses. It was a kingdom, i.e., a specific territority - on the earth - ruled by a king, but with respect to the Israelites the king was God. It is therefore God's kingdom; hence, the kingdom of God. After a time the people grew weary of not having a king like all the other nations around them and asked Samuel for one. Well, we all know what happened after that. In a few short generations, the kingdom was split in two, and ultimately failed. So Jesus comes along (actually John the Baptist started it) preaching the kingdom of God (or heaven in Matthew). It was Jesus' intention to re-establish the kingdom as it had been under Moses, not to whisk everybody off to heaven. If you study the gospel closely and objectively it is easy to see that Jesus never used language to support such an idea. In the famous Lord's prayer, he admonished his followers to pray, on a daily basis, that God's kingdom would come so that God's will might be done "on the earth."

Cynic Sage

May 28th 2005, 03:20 PM

My error was in my original post. It was too long.

My position on the matter stems from my interpretation of "kingdom of God."

I believe it was presented by Jesus as a kingdom, like all other kingdoms, on the earth, not a kingdom in heaven. I do not believe that Jesus was speaking about heaven, or going to heaven, as the popular jargon has it, when he spoke of the kingdom. I recently completed a critique of the gospel of Matthew in which I dealt repeatedly with this issue. As you probably know, Matthew uses the phrase "kingdom of heaven" instead of "kingdom of
God." His semitic convictions, and little more, are behind this. I'm sure that you are also aware of Jewish sensibilities with respect to God's name. The kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are, therefore, the same thing, just dressed up in different attire. The kingdom of God is so named because of its original establishment under Moses. It was a kingdom, i.e., a specific territority - on the earth - ruled by a king, but with respect to the Israelites the king was God. It is therefore God's kingdom; hence, the kingdom of God. After a time the people grew weary of not having a king like all the other nations around them and asked Samuel for one. Well, we all know what happened after that. In a few short generations, the kingdom was split in two, and ultimately failed. So Jesus comes along (actually John the Baptist started it) preaching the kingdom of God (or heaven in Matthew). It was Jesus' intention to re-establish the kingdom as it had been under Moses, not to whisk everybody off to heaven. If you study the gospel closely and objectively it is easy to see that Jesus never used language to support such an idea. In the famous Lord's prayer, he admonished his followers to pray, on a daily basis, that God's kingdom would come so that God's will might be done "on the earth."

"...as it is in heaven."

BTW: Have you read any of the work of Bruce Malina on the Subject of Socio-cultural interpretation of scripture? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=stripbooks:relevance-above&field-keywords=Bruce%252520Malina&search-type=ss&bq=1&store-name=books/ref=xs_ap_l_xgl14/002-2676403-7647237)

iwayne

May 28th 2005, 06:38 PM

"...as it is in heaven."

BTW: Have you read any of the work of Bruce Malina on the Subject of Socio-cultural interpretation of scripture? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=stripbooks:relevance-above&field-keywords=Bruce%252520Malina&search-type=ss&bq=1&store-name=books/ref=xs_ap_l_xgl14/002-2676403-7647237)

I'm not sure if you're supporting my position by saying "as it is in heaven" or taking issue with it. Yes, he did say to pray "May your will be done on earth as it is in heaven," but the point is that he said to pray for God's kingdom to come (to the earth) so that His will could be done on earth as it is already done in heaven. The point is that the kingdom was to be an earthly kingdom in terms of its location, i.e., the land of Palestine and not some mystical place in the skies or in some other mysterious dimension. In other words, Jesus didn't talk about taking everybody to heaven as it is so commonly taught in most evangelical circles.

Captain Ochre

May 28th 2005, 09:05 PM

My error was in my original post. It was too long.

It was long enough to contain a number of errors aside from the error of merely being too long, IMHO.

My position on the matter stems from my interpretation of "kingdom of God."

Your position on what matter?
Your style of reply, iwayne, leaves much to be guessed at. You're not addressing my individual points, and your own reply (presented in a whole block of text as it is) provides insufficient context to make clear what you're talking about.
I'd guess that you think that your position on the matter of Jesus supposedly advocating an economic model along the lines of (small "c") communism or socialism is based on your supposition that the Kingdom is intended to be an earthly kingdom--but that's a non sequitur AFAICS. It doesn't seem to follow. Could you lay out your thinking in some semblance of an orderly fashion so that we may follow the logical steps that you took in reaching your conclusion?

I believe it was presented by Jesus as a kingdom, like all other kingdoms, on the earth, not a kingdom in heaven. I do not believe that Jesus was speaking about heaven, or going to heaven, as the popular jargon has it, when he spoke of the kingdom.

I truly don't see how that would matter one whit with respect to my reply to your post. I'm willing to attempt to follow your explanation as to why it would matter, however. Regardless of what type of kingdom Jesus is talking about, I provided you with an example of Him speaking about the kingdom with a decidedly capitalistic flavor. There might be a way to explain it away, but merely saying that you don't believe that the Kingdom refers to heaven doesn't seem to cut the mustard.

I recently completed a critique of the gospel of Matthew in which I dealt repeatedly with this issue. As you probably know, Matthew uses the phrase "kingdom of heaven" instead of "kingdom of
God." His semitic convictions, and little more, are behind this. I'm sure that you are also aware of Jewish sensibilities with respect to God's name. The kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are, therefore, the same thing, just dressed up in different attire.

So what? What does any of this have to do with your ponderings regarding the biblical economic ideal?

The kingdom of God is so named because of its original establishment under Moses. It was a kingdom, i.e., a specific territority - on the earth - ruled by a king, but with respect to the Israelites the king was God. It is therefore God's kingdom; hence, the kingdom of God. After a time the people grew weary of not having a king like all the other nations around them and asked Samuel for one. Well, we all know what happened after that. In a few short generations, the kingdom was split in two, and ultimately failed. So Jesus comes along (actually John the Baptist started it) preaching the kingdom of God (or heaven in Matthew). It was Jesus' intention to re-establish the kingdom as it had been under Moses, not to whisk everybody off to heaven. If you study the gospel closely and objectively it is easy to see that Jesus never used language to support such an idea. In the famous Lord's prayer, he admonished his followers to pray, on a daily basis, that God's kingdom would come so that God's will might be done "on the earth."

Are you going to address my critique, or will you simply continue to peddle your books? :huh:

iwayne

May 28th 2005, 10:40 PM

Resources figure in, but economics is actually based on work, and work is essentially something that you do that has value to somebody else. Resources in economics are usually traded as symbols of the value of work ($5.35 was the symbol of one hour's work by somebody making minimum wage, for example).

I'll bet the word "work" appears in some form, however.
:smile:
The ANE slavery system illustrates the point. Today, you can use a credit card to buy things with value you have not yet produced with your work. Similarly, in the ANE one could sell the future work of a family member by selling them into slavery (which of course was not chattel slavery but in principle the same thing as using credit).

Unfortunately, the point is simply wrong. Sure, we can credit God even for our ability to work, but God himself gave us the commandment not to steal, which is nonsensical without a concept of property that goes beyond God owning absolutely everything.

Right, but those resources are also a symbol of work, and those symbols tend to be recognized by other men. On top of that God seems to recognize the utility of private property by recognizing it implicitly through an awareness of the sins of stealing and covetousness.

You wouldn't, either!
:lol:
You can't just walk up and take away my tomato money. You could sue me for it, but you'd probably only be able to recoup a reasonable lease price for the land so used and the cost of restoring the land if the farming project caused some residual damage that would involve cost.

You seem to be taking a statement of God's sovereignty and turning it into a supposed "unassailable economic principle". Knowing that the Earth is the Lord's tells you absolutely nothing about how the resources should be managed, nor even whether or not you have a right to manage those resources.
Go back to Genesis, however, and you find that Adam and Eve are given dominion over the Earth on behalf of mankind. It is in this sense of dominion, I believe, that Adam and Eve are primarily said to be in the image of God (one particular area where I think that LDS doctrine is actually close to being correct, incidentally).

Am I a resource? Do I have any right (under God) to determine by whom I will be used as a resource?
If I'm not a resource in that sense, then who owns the work that I do?

Whoa, whoa, whoa!
If men can't own the resources belonging to God, then what gives the government the right to manage "its" resources?

:huh:
Doe it take advantage of a widow if the government doesn't give her an equal share in the resources that the government somehow gained the right to manage?
Explain how that principle is illustrated by the text, please.

So the government can just send her visitors instead of deeding her some land in the Sacramento Valley?
I'm afraid your scripture citations did little more than confuse whatever point you're trying to make.

Seems to me the verses indicate that God would not tolerate abuse of the widow even by the less advantaged ...

I guess you're not going to explain to us why the Mosaic law set up a taxation system that asked 10% from the citizen regardless of whether he was rich or poor.
As for your question, we have quite a few in this forum who support the Democratic Party even though the Democratic Party is at the forefront of secularizing the government (which doesn't appear to jibe with your lauding of the lack of separation of church and state during the course of your screed above).
The rich are blessed (Job was considered blessed based on his material assets), but the Republican Party hardly claims to control access to the gates of heaven (depending on how you mean us to interpret "the kingdom of God").

I wonder is this the same liberal Wayne who formerly posted under a different name?

"economics is actually based on work,"

It could not be solely based on work. Resources always have to be included in the equation. All work is somehow related to resources.

"God himself gave us the commandment not to steal, which is nonsensical without a concept of property that goes beyond God owning absolutely everything."

The issue is not personal property so much as wealth, especially excessive wealth. No kind of wealth exists completely disassociated from resources. Even so-called intellectual property is sold, traded, used with the aid resources, even if it's only the resources necessary for electronic transmissions.

"Knowing that the Earth is the Lord's tells you absolutely nothing about how the resources should be managed, nor even whether or not you have a right to manage those resources."

I completely disagree with this. If you truly believe that the earth is the Lord's, then, with the aid of some very simple logic, you thereby know that it is not yours, or anyone else's for that matter. The very fact that it isn't yours, and that you know it isn't yours, if nothing else should at least give you some pause before embarking on some action with respect to its use. If everyone felt this way, at the very least, there would surely be more "committee" desicion making, as opposed to the personal variety, about how those resources should be used. The principle, in other words, should prompt more social cooperaton with respect to the proper use of the resources.

"Am I a resource? Do I have any right (under God) to determine by whom I will be used as a resource?
If I'm not a resource in that sense, then who owns the work that I do?"

I would have to answer this in the affirmative. Yes, you are a resource. The question of "rights" in the kingdom of God is an interesting one. I would have to say that you would not have the same kind of rights there as you enjoy in the U.S. The kingdom of God, after all, is not a democracy. And since the bible also says that "It is He that hath made us and not we ourselves," I would have to say that your labor would belong to the kingdom. Remember, the verse clearly states that God owns the earth and its people. This would translate accordingly under the sovereignty of the kingdom of God.

iwayne

May 28th 2005, 10:45 PM

It was long enough to contain a number of errors aside from the error of merely being too long, IMHO.

Your position on what matter?
Your style of reply, iwayne, leaves much to be guessed at. You're not addressing my individual points, and your own reply (presented in a whole block of text as it is) provides insufficient context to make clear what you're talking about.
I'd guess that you think that your position on the matter of Jesus supposedly advocating an economic model along the lines of (small "c") communism or socialism is based on your supposition that the Kingdom is intended to be an earthly kingdom--but that's a non sequitur AFAICS. It doesn't seem to follow. Could you lay out your thinking in some semblance of an orderly fashion so that we may follow the logical steps that you took in reaching your conclusion?

I truly don't see how that would matter one whit with respect to my reply to your post. I'm willing to attempt to follow your explanation as to why it would matter, however. Regardless of what type of kingdom Jesus is talking about, I provided you with an example of Him speaking about the kingdom with a decidedly capitalistic flavor. There might be a way to explain it away, but merely saying that you don't believe that the Kingdom refers to heaven doesn't seem to cut the mustard.

So what? What does any of this have to do with your ponderings regarding the biblical economic ideal?

Are you going to address my critique, or will you simply continue to peddle your books? :huh:

I was trying to say that I started the whole thing improperly. I should have begun by offering my interpretation of the kingdom of God. Many xians believe that it suggests going to heaven. I don't believe the bible anywhere suggest this. I believe it is an earthly kingdom, a soverign national state. As such, it surely has an economic policy, one decidedly mandated by God.

Captain Ochre

May 29th 2005, 01:02 AM

"economics is actually based on work,"

It could not be solely based on work. Resources always have to be included in the equation. All work is somehow related to resources.

I don't claim that economies are based "solely" on work.
They are chiefly based on work. Resources figure in, sure--but they are not essential.
A mom hires a babysitter. The mom provides all of the resources necessarily to care for her child: Food, bed, toothpaste, etcetera. The babysitter provides only a service in processing the resources provided by the mom. The mom might pay the babysitter in the symbolism of money (the amount signifying the value of the work performed), or she might even confer one of her resources "You can have that radio to take home with you, Ashely". Whether it is money or a palpable resource, the payment is symbolic of the value of the work performed. Not only that, but the mom might herself offer a service for payment instead of either a resource or money ("You babysit my child, and I'll give you piano lessons").

CO:
God himself gave us the commandment not to steal, which is nonsensical without a concept of property that goes beyond God owning absolutely everything.

The issue is not personal property so much as wealth, especially excessive wealth.

If that's the case, then there's no need for you to invoke God's ownership of all things, AFAICS. You should be claiming that all "excessive" wealth belongs to God instead of all things.
Good luck defining "excessive wealth", BTW.

No kind of wealth exists completely disassociated from resources. Even so-called intellectual property is sold, traded, used with the aid resources, even if it's only the resources necessary for electronic transmissions.

That's no less than a comedown from "economics is ultimately based on resources", AFAICS.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1038949&postcount=1

From there you went right on to telling us (in effect) that God owns everything.
You'd probably remind us that if there are no pianos then the mom can't give the babysitter piano lessons.
:smile:
That type of approach risks making your claim appear utterly vacuous, IMO.

CO:
Knowing that the Earth is the Lord's tells you absolutely nothing about how the resources should be managed, nor even whether or not you have a right to manage those resources.

I completely disagree with this.

Good. Explain why.
<CO peeks below in anticipation>

If you truly believe that the earth is the Lord's, then, with the aid of some very simple logic, you thereby know that it is not yours, or anyone else's for that matter. The very fact that it isn't yours, and that you know it isn't yours, if nothing else should at least give you some pause before embarking on some action with respect to its use.

Great. Now what do we do after that pause?
Before we proceed, let's review the statement to which you objected:
"Knowing that the Earth is the Lord's tells you absolutely nothing about how the resources should be managed, nor even whether or not you have a right to manage those resources.".

So far you think that we have good reason to pause, but we still don't know how the resources should be managed nor even whether or not we have a right to manage those resources.

If everyone felt this way, at the very least, there would surely be more "committee" desicion making, as opposed to the personal variety, about how those resources should be used.

Huh?
Why is that? You just got done telling me that I "know that it is not yours, or anyone else's for that matter". Seems to me that any committee that doesn't include God falls into the category of "anybody else" which is the category of people who do not own the things owned by God. If I can't decide what to do with God's stuff then why should I expect them to have an opinion worth noting? They don't own what is God's, according to your own words.

The principle, in other words, should prompt more social cooperaton with respect to the proper use of the resources.

That is a non sequitur, Wayne. You're either reasoning illogically or hiding your logic from us (whether unintentionally or otherwise).

CO:
Am I a resource? Do I have any right (under God) to determine by whom I will be used as a resource?
If I'm not a resource in that sense, then who owns the work that I do?

I would have to answer this in the affirmative. Yes, you are a resource. The question of "rights" in the kingdom of God is an interesting one. I would have to say that you would not have the same kind of rights there as you enjoy in the U.S. The kingdom of God, after all, is not a democracy.

Beside the point, since we're talking about economics rather than systems of government. A king could institute a market economy as easily as could a majority vote.

And since the bible also says that "It is He that hath made us and not we ourselves," I would have to say that your labor would belong to the kingdom.

And you'd be extrapolating like a madman.
100:1 A Psalm of thanksgiving. Shout unto the Lord, all the earth.

100:2 Serve the Lord with gladness; come before His presence with singing.

100:3 Know ye that the Lord He is God; it is He that hath made us, and we our[sic] His, His people, and the flock of His pasture.

100:4 Enter into His gates with thanksgiving, and into His courts with praise; give thanks unto Him, and bless His name.

100:5 For the Lord is good; His mercy endureth for ever; and His faithfulness unto all generations.
http://www.hebrewsongs.com/psalm100.htm

As a statement of economics, that's about as minimal as you can get. There is simply nothing there that should bar us from concluding the "sheep" of the illustration could own their own property--even to excess.

Remember, the verse clearly states that God owns the earth and its people. This would translate accordingly under the sovereignty of the kingdom of God.

You figure that God will sell us or trade us? If not, then what conclusion can we draw from this verse that will assist us in determining what to do with the grass in this pasture we find ourselves in.
May we eat of it?
Should we check with a committee of the other sheep before we eat of the grass?
Should we starve ourselves for fear of angering the owner of the grass, lest he catch us stealing his grass?

Thanks for attempting to deal with the issues, BTW.
It's your best opportunity to avoid being categorized as a troll. Note, however, that you haven't really begun to deal with the issues yet.

iwayne

May 29th 2005, 07:48 AM

I don't claim that economies are based "solely" on work.
They are chiefly based on work. Resources figure in, sure--but they are not essential.
A mom hires a babysitter. The mom provides all of the resources necessarily to care for her child: Food, bed, toothpaste, etcetera. The babysitter provides only a service in processing the resources provided by the mom. The mom might pay the babysitter in the symbolism of money (the amount signifying the value of the work performed), or she might even confer one of her resources "You can have that radio to take home with you, Ashely". Whether it is money or a palpable resource, the payment is symbolic of the value of the work performed. Not only that, but the mom might herself offer a service for payment instead of either a resource or money ("You babysit my child, and I'll give you piano lessons").

If that's the case, then there's no need for you to invoke God's ownership of all things, AFAICS. You should be claiming that all "excessive" wealth belongs to God instead of all things.
Good luck defining "excessive wealth", BTW.

That's no less than a comedown from "economics is ultimately based on resources", AFAICS.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1038949&postcount=1

From there you went right on to telling us (in effect) that God owns everything.
You'd probably remind us that if there are no pianos then the mom can't give the babysitter piano lessons.
:smile:
That type of approach risks making your claim appear utterly vacuous, IMO.

Good. Explain why.
<CO peeks below in anticipation>

Great. Now what do we do after that pause?
Before we proceed, let's review the statement to which you objected:
"Knowing that the Earth is the Lord's tells you absolutely nothing about how the resources should be managed, nor even whether or not you have a right to manage those resources.".

So far you think that we have good reason to pause, but we still don't know how the resources should be managed nor even whether or not we have a right to manage those resources.

Huh?
Why is that? You just got done telling me that I "know that it is not yours, or anyone else's for that matter". Seems to me that any committee that doesn't include God falls into the category of "anybody else" which is the category of people who do not own the things owned by God. If I can't decide what to do with God's stuff then why should I expect them to have an opinion worth noting? They don't own what is God's, according to your own words.

That is a non sequitur, Wayne. You're either reasoning illogically or hiding your logic from us (whether unintentionally or otherwise).

Beside the point, since we're talking about economics rather than systems of government. A king could institute a market economy as easily as could a majority vote.

And you'd be extrapolating like a madman.
100:1 A Psalm of thanksgiving. Shout unto the Lord, all the earth.

100:2 Serve the Lord with gladness; come before His presence with singing.

100:3 Know ye that the Lord He is God; it is He that hath made us, and we our[sic] His, His people, and the flock of His pasture.

100:4 Enter into His gates with thanksgiving, and into His courts with praise; give thanks unto Him, and bless His name.

100:5 For the Lord is good; His mercy endureth for ever; and His faithfulness unto all generations.
http://www.hebrewsongs.com/psalm100.htm

As a statement of economics, that's about as minimal as you can get. There is simply nothing there that should bar us from concluding the "sheep" of the illustration could own their own property--even to excess.

You figure that God will sell us or trade us? If not, then what conclusion can we draw from this verse that will assist us in determining what to do with the grass in this pasture we find ourselves in.
May we eat of it?
Should we check with a committee of the other sheep before we eat of the grass?
Should we starve ourselves for fear of angering the owner of the grass, lest he catch us stealing his grass?

Thanks for attempting to deal with the issues, BTW.
It's your best opportunity to avoid being categorized as a troll. Note, however, that you haven't really begun to deal with the issues yet.

Before I respond, I need to know about some of the abbreviations you're using. Some are obvious, like BTW (by the way), but what does AFAICS mean?

I can tell from your arguments that you're not grasping the essential point of my thesis, which is probably my fault. As I said, I started the whole thread improperly. I should have started with the kingdom of God. I have a particular take on it, one that is antithetical to the mainstream view, which seems to hold that beleivers are some day going to be whisked off to heaven to spend eternity with the Lord. I don't believe the Bible supports this concept. I believe the kingdom of God was (under Moses) a place on earth, i.e., the nation of Israel. I further believe that both Jesus and John the Baptist were referring to the Mosaic kingdom when they preached the kingdom of God. That kingdom had failed. It had not been a kingdom for some time. At the time of Jesus and John, the nation of Israel was occupied by a foreign power (the Romans), without the benefit of their own reigning monarch. Hence, their preaching. They were in effect trying to re-establish that kingdom, which meant that they were pushing for an anointed king to be seated on the throne. The kingdom of God is a soverign nation ON THE EARTH. As such, it surely has its own economic policy. As the kingdom of GOD, we may also conclude that it is not a democracy. God calls the shots, period. All the resources belong to God and would treated as such. This would not preclude the ability to practice private ownership, but always within the parameters of the kingdom, always mindful that all things are ultimately God's. This means that the kingdom would indeed based upon an attitude, a sense of recogniton that God is the ultimate owner, and no matter how successful one may become, they should never forget that the realization of that wealth was derived from resources which belonged to someone else. That wealth is therefore to be shared.

Captain Ochre

May 29th 2005, 11:42 PM

Before I respond, I need to know about some of the abbreviations you're using. Some are obvious, like BTW (by the way), but what does AFAICS mean?

As Far As I Can See.
It's cousin to AFAIK, where the "K" stands in for "Know".

I can tell from your arguments that you're not grasping the essential point of my thesis, which is probably my fault.

Perhaps you could sum it up for us someday.
:wink:

As I said, I started the whole thread improperly. I should have started with the kingdom of God. I have a particular take on it, one that is antithetical to the mainstream view, which seems to hold that beleivers are some day going to be whisked off to heaven to spend eternity with the Lord.

That view is hardly unique on your part, and I don't see stressing that view important to your argument that God's ownership of everthing implies a particular type of economy in the Kingdom.
Whether it's an economy in heaven or an economy on earth, you're claiming that God's ownership gives us some idea of what type of economy is expected.

I don't believe the Bible supports this concept. I believe the kingdom of God was (under Moses) a place on earth, i.e., the nation of Israel. I further believe that both Jesus and John the Baptist were referring to the Mosaic kingdom when they preached the kingdom of God. That kingdom had failed. It had not been a kingdom for some time. At the time of Jesus and John, the nation of Israel was occupied by a foreign power (the Romans), without the benefit of their own reigning monarch. Hence, their preaching. They were in effect trying to re-establish that kingdom, which meant that they were pushing for an anointed king to be seated on the throne. The kingdom of God is a soverign nation ON THE EARTH.

It is at least reasonable to suppose that the Jews of that time were hoping for such a king.

As such, it surely has its own economic policy.

Such as?
Or shall we dance around the question interminably?

As the kingdom of GOD, we may also conclude that it is not a democracy. God calls the shots, period.

1) Non sequitur. Kings are able to delegate authority. Would God as King be unable to do so? Why not?
2) Whether or not God calls the shots, the issue of the economy remains unanswered (so far).

All the resources belong to God and would treated as such.

Okay, so how does that work out in practice? Do we give something to God (that God already owns) in purchase, rent, or lease of something that we want? Or what?

This would not preclude the ability to practice private ownership,

Bingbingbingbingbingbingbingbing!
Excellent! We agree on something.

but always within the parameters of the kingdom, always mindful that all things are ultimately God's. This means that the kingdom would indeed based upon an attitude, a sense of recogniton that God is the ultimate owner, and no matter how successful one may become, they should never forget that the realization of that wealth was derived from resources which belonged to someone else. That wealth is therefore to be shared.

And if one has no excess of wealth, then he cannot share it.
So what's your point in all of this, if any?

iwayne

May 30th 2005, 07:19 AM

As Far As I Can See.
It's cousin to AFAIK, where the "K" stands in for "Know".

Perhaps you could sum it up for us someday.
:wink:

That view is hardly unique on your part, and I don't see stressing that view important to your argument that God's ownership of everthing implies a particular type of economy in the Kingdom.
Whether it's an economy in heaven or an economy on earth, you're claiming that God's ownership gives us some idea of what type of economy is expected.

It is at least reasonable to suppose that the Jews of that time were hoping for such a king.

Such as?
Or shall we dance around the question interminably?

1) Non sequitur. Kings are able to delegate authority. Would God as King be unable to do so? Why not?
2) Whether or not God calls the shots, the issue of the economy remains unanswered (so far).

Okay, so how does that work out in practice? Do we give something to God (that God already owns) in purchase, rent, or lease of something that we want? Or what?

Bingbingbingbingbingbingbingbing!
Excellent! We agree on something.

And if one has no excess of wealth, then he cannot share it.
So what's your point in all of this, if any?

"Whether it's an economy in heaven or an economy on earth, you're claiming that God's ownership gives us some idea of what type of economy is expected."

Yes, that is exactly what I'm claiming. But I am not exactly certain what that economic system would be, what name we'd give it. I'm really not sure of the details of it. I'm only trying to suggest that it's difficult to imagine that it would be anything like what we practice in the U.S. The point is that (whatever the details) the kingdom of God must surely be something different than any of the kingdoms of Man. If not, then what's the point of preaching and promoting it? In the kingdoms of Man we see free market economies in place. I have a hard time believing that this would be allowed in the kingdom of God. I can't imagine, for example, that something like the phenomenon of Bill Gates would be allowed to happen. I can't imagine in the kingdom of God that someone would be allowed to become a billionaire while others barely subsisted. It just wouldn't make any sense. I can understand that the economic policies of Man would allow it to happen. But I can't see God allowing it.

"So what's your point in all of this, if any?"

My point is that the majority of xians are spreading the wrong message. I don't believe that Jesus came here to start a religion about himself. If anything, he came to improve things on the earth. One of his ideas for making things better on this planet was re-establishing the kingdom of God as it was under Moses, which suggests that the kingdoms of Man would be abolished, as well as all the economic policies of those kingdoms. As I said, I'm not really sure what exactly God's economic policy would entail. I've got to believe, though, that, at very least, He would surely enforce more equality with respect to our ability to access the resources.

Captain Ochre

May 30th 2005, 11:24 AM

"Whether it's an economy in heaven or an economy on earth, you're claiming that God's ownership gives us some idea of what type of economy is expected."

Yes, that is exactly what I'm claiming. But I am not exactly certain what that economic system would be, what name we'd give it.

Your reply is paradoxical if not contradictory unless you're somewhat certain what that economic system would be.
You give us so little detail that you might as well not have any idea at all what that economic system would be. All you seem to know is that it's " ... not that one".
We we lined up a bunch of economic systems, could you pick the Kingdom system out of the lineup? :huh:

I'm really not sure of the details of it. I'm only trying to suggest that it's difficult to imagine that it would be anything like what we practice in the U.S.

The logic that you describe above commonly goes by the name "the fallacy of argument from incredulity".
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Argument_from_incredulity
You don't specify why you can't believe that the Kingdom would employ a free market economy, but you suggest that the Kingdom would not employ such an economy because it is supposedly unbelievable (at least to you).

The point is that (whatever the details) the kingdom of God must surely be something different than any of the kingdoms of Man.

In terms of economic system, why?

If not, then what's the point of preaching and promoting it?

Uh, because most nations do not exhibit a perfect example of a free market economy?
:teeth:

In the kingdoms of Man we see free market economies in place.

In the kingdoms of man we also see socialist and communistic economies in place.
We're still stuck with your argument from incredulity, AFAICS.

I have a hard time believing that this would be allowed in the kingdom of God.

(Bold emphasis added)
Noted, but that's a weak argument at best.

I can't imagine, for example, that something like the phenomenon of Bill Gates would be allowed to happen. I can't imagine in the kingdom of God that someone would be allowed to become a billionaire while others barely subsisted.

The phenomenon of Bill Gates apparently includes at least some people who barely subsist. Evidently if Bill Gates doesn't somehow ensure that those people subsist better than "barely", he is not worthy of being part of the Kingdom economy. We'd rather have the persons who barely subsist, I suppose, regardless of whether they are drunkards, sloths, or serial killers. :wink:
Perhaps the problem with Earth government is sin rather than system?

It just wouldn't make any sense. I can understand that the economic policies of Man would allow it to happen. But I can't see God allowing it.

Again: Are you willing to consider that that problem is sin rather than system?

"So what's your point in all of this, if any?"

My point is that the majority of xians are spreading the wrong message.

And even though you apparently don't know what the right message is, you apparently see well enough to remove that horrible plank from the eye of your neighbor.
Wayne, if you don't know the right way (to even a minimal degree of detail), then how can you so dependably condemn the wrong way?

I don't believe that Jesus came here to start a religion about himself.

That's a tad ambiguous. Jesus identified himself as the one who was to be followed, since he spoke with the authority of God. Jesus provided a specific (albeit not exhaustive) code of community conduct. That's what a religion is in essence--no?

If anything, he came to improve things on the earth. One of his ideas for making things better on this planet was re-establishing the kingdom of God as it was under Moses, which suggests that the kingdoms of Man would be abolished, as well as all the economic policies of those kingdoms.

The Kingdom of God under Moses was arguably a model for a democratic republic. The Israelites had representatives (elders) who met to deliberate over various aspects of public policy.
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040328.htm

There was no King of Israel until Saul--and it wasn't God's preference.
I think the problem was sin rather than system.
Would you disagree?

As I said, I'm not really sure what exactly God's economic policy would entail. I've got to believe, though, that, at very least, He would surely enforce more equality with respect to our ability to access the resources.

In the United States, I have the same ability to access resources that Bill Gates had. The difference is he has done a better job of accessing resources than I have done (but only by a few billion dollars, last I checked). Free markets are by definition free access to resources. You don't want free access to resources. You want regulation of access to resources (AFAICT). Perhaps you'd outfit Bill Gates with regalia not unlike that of Harrison Bergeron in your vision of utopia.
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

iwayne

May 30th 2005, 12:24 PM

Your reply is paradoxical if not contradictory unless you're somewhat certain what that economic system would be.
You give us so little detail that you might as well not have any idea at all what that economic system would be. All you seem to know is that it's " ... not that one".
We we lined up a bunch of economic systems, could you pick the Kingdom system out of the lineup? :huh:

The logic that you describe above commonly goes by the name "the fallacy of argument from incredulity".
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Argument_from_incredulity
You don't specify why you can't believe that the Kingdom would employ a free market economy, but you suggest that the Kingdom would not employ such an economy because it is supposedly unbelievable (at least to you).

In terms of economic system, why?

Uh, because most nations do not exhibit a perfect example of a free market economy?
:teeth:

In the kingdoms of man we also see socialist and communistic economies in place.
We're still stuck with your argument from incredulity, AFAICS.

(Bold emphasis added)
Noted, but that's a weak argument at best.

The phenomenon of Bill Gates apparently includes at least some people who barely subsist. Evidently if Bill Gates doesn't somehow ensure that those people subsist better than "barely", he is not worthy of being part of the Kingdom economy. We'd rather have the persons who barely subsist, I suppose, regardless of whether they are drunkards, sloths, or serial killers. :wink:
Perhaps the problem with Earth government is sin rather than system?

Again: Are you willing to consider that that problem is sin rather than system?

And even though you apparently don't know what the right message is, you apparently see well enough to remove that horrible plank from the eye of your neighbor.
Wayne, if you don't know the right way (to even a minimal degree of detail), then how can you so dependably condemn the wrong way?

That's a tad ambiguous. Jesus identified himself as the one who was to be followed, since he spoke with the authority of God. Jesus provided a specific (albeit not exhaustive) code of community conduct. That's what a religion is in essence--no?

The Kingdom of God under Moses was arguably a model for a democratic republic. The Israelites had representatives (elders) who met to deliberate over various aspects of public policy.
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040328.htm

There was no King of Israel until Saul--and it wasn't God's preference.
I think the problem was sin rather than system.
Would you disagree?

In the United States, I have the same ability to access resources that Bill Gates had. The difference is he has done a better job of accessing resources than I have done (but only by a few billion dollars, last I checked). Free markets are by definition free access to resources. You don't want free access to resources. You want regulation of access to resources (AFAICT). Perhaps you'd outfit Bill Gates with regalia not unlike that of Harrison Bergeron in your vision of utopia.
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

I'm not so sure I could pick them out of a lineup. But if I were going to try, I know what I'd look for. I'd look for a system in which there were no excessive disparities. There wouldn't be someone like Bill Gates and homeless and poor at the same time. If there was system in which there was someone like Bill Gates while at the same time no one was starving or homeless, I would most likely conclude that that system was closer to the kingdom of God paradigm I envision.

I don't believe the kingdom of God would support economic free-for-alls because those free-for-alls nearly always result in an unequal distribution of wealth. If God owns the resources (a principle upon which the kingdom would surely operate), I find it difficult to believe that he would tolerate disparities beyond a certain point. I'm not so sure if the equality would be forced to be perfect, just fair. And fair would certainly not include a scenario in which Bill Gates' types would flourish while others were doing without.

In the economy of the kingdom it would not be up to people like Bill Gates to ensure that the resources were fairly equally distributed. It would be up to the system itself to do that.

Of course I am expressing opinions born of incredulity. I don't claim to have perfect knowledge of the kingdom and all it would entail. I am expressing my feelings. I do not believe that the bible is the authoritative word of God as the xians do. So I don't quote it that way. I am very familiar with the bible, however, and quote it to support my arguments with xians. I only quote it because they (xians) believe it, not because I do. I repeat: I believe the xians have it all wrong to preach Jesus in the way they do. I'm not aware that Jesus ever said that we are to accept him as "personal" savior. Jesus did not go around preaching Jesus. He followed in the footsteps of his mentor, John the Baptist, and preached the kingdom of God. He made it clear, on more than one occasion, that the rich could have no part of that kingdom.

Cynic Sage

May 30th 2005, 02:54 PM

I believe the xians have it all wrong to preach Jesus in the way they do. I'm not aware that Jesus ever said that we are to accept him as "personal" savior.

It was more of a Patron/Client relationship with God with God the father as Patron, us as the client, and Jesus acting as broker/middleman.

He made it clear, on more than one occasion, that the rich could have no part of that kingdom.

What then do you make of wealthy followers such as the widow Mary Magdalene and Joseph of Arimethea?

iwayne

May 30th 2005, 05:12 PM

It was more of a Patron/Client relationship with God with God the father as Patron, us as the client, and Jesus acting as broker/middleman.

What then do you make of wealthy followers such as the widow Mary Magdalene and Joseph of Arimethea?

If Jesus meant what he said, that it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom than for a camel (or a fisherman's rope) to pass through the eye of a needle, I'd have to say that they would have to give up their riches in order to enter the kingdom. The anointing with the expensive perfume, which many assume was performed by Mary Magdalene, may be viewed as an attitude on her part to gladly give up her wealth in exchange for such entry. Jesus preached and promoted the kingdom, but it never materialized. Mary Magdalene is presented to us as if she were a believer/supporter, right up to the very end.

Captain Ochre

May 30th 2005, 06:49 PM

If Jesus meant what he said, that it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom than for a camel (or a fisherman's rope) to pass through the eye of a needle, I'd have to say that they would have to give up their riches in order to enter the kingdom.

Jesus very probably meant what he said, and at the same time it was probably hyperbole.
If I describe a movie as "slower than molasses flowing up a hill in January" there is a definite meaning to what I say: The movie is slow. OTOH, it is neither necessary nor proper to take the description literally.

The anointing with the expensive perfume, which many assume was performed by Mary Magdalene, may be viewed as an attitude on her part to gladly give up her wealth in exchange for such entry.

Do you recall the criticism that she received for so doing? The ointment could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Mary would still be giving up the resource. Your explanation doesn't fit the text. We call what you're doing "eisegesis", Wayne. You have your point of view, and you justify that point of view using the text whether the meaning of the text (according to its own context) would support you or not. You "read into" the text what you wish to find.

Jesus preached and promoted the kingdom, but it never materialized.

Some few of the disciples glimpsed the glory of the kingdom, apparently (the Mount of Transfiguration).

iwayne

May 30th 2005, 07:45 PM

Jesus very probably meant what he said, and at the same time it was probably hyperbole.
If I describe a movie as "slower than molasses flowing up a hill in January" there is a definite meaning to what I say: The movie is slow. OTOH, it is neither necessary nor proper to take the description literally.

Do you recall the criticism that she received for so doing? The ointment could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Mary would still be giving up the resource. Your explanation doesn't fit the text. We call what you're doing "eisegesis", Wayne. You have your point of view, and you justify that point of view using the text whether the meaning of the text (according to its own context) would support you or not. You "read into" the text what you wish to find.

Some few of the disciples glimpsed the glory of the kingdom, apparently (the Mount of Transfiguration).

The following (rather long) passage is from a book entitled Jesus, before Christianity. It was written by a South African priest, Albert Nolan. The selection is from chapter 7, The Kingdom and Money:

The pursuit of wealth is diametrically opposed to the pursuit of God or the kingdom of God. Mammon and God are like two masters. If you love and serve the one, you must of necessity reject the other (Mt 6: 24 par; compare Mk 4: 19 parr). No compromise is possible.
Jesus' sayings about money and possessions are frequently regarded as amongst the 'hardest' in the gospels. Most Christians tend to water them down. The most astounding statement about the kingdom of God is not that it was near but that it would be the kingdom of the poor and that the rich, as long as they remain rich, would have no part in it (Lk 6: 20-26). It is as impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom as it would be for a camel (or is it a fisherman's rope?)1 to be threaded through the eye of a needle (Mk 10: 25 parr). Mark tells us that even Jesus' disciples were astounded by this (10: 24, 26). What kind of kingdom will this be?
'In that case', they said to one another, 'who can
be saved?' Jesus gazed at them.'For men', he said,
'it is impossible, but not for God: because everything
is possible for God.' (Mk 10: 26-27)
In other words it would take a miracle to get a rich man into the kingdom of God. And the miracle would not be getting him in with all his wealth, the miracle would be getting him to give up all his wealth so that he could enter a kingdom of the poor. This is what the rich young man in the gospel story was asked to do (Mk 10: 17-22 parr). But, because he had too little faith in the kingdom of God and relied too heavily upon financial security, the miracle did not take place. God's power was not able to work in him to achieve the impossible.
There will be no place in the kingdom of God for the rich. There will be no rewards and no consolations there for them (Lk 6: 24-26). In the parable about the rich man and beggar, Lazarus, one is given no other reason why the rich man should be so dramatically excluded from all rewards except that he was rich and that he did not share his wealth with the beggar (Lk 16: 19-31). This too is all that this rich man wants to warn his brothers about. But who would believe it?
It follows that setting one's heart on the kingdom of God and subscribing to its values entails selling all one's possessions (Mt 6: 19-21, Lk 12: 33-34; 14: 33). Jesus expected his followers to leave everything: home, family, land, boats and nets (Mk 1: 18, 20 par; 10: 28-30 parr; Lk 5: 11). He warns them of the need to sit down anid count the cost first (Lk 14: 28-33).
Something more than mere almsgiving is being demanded here. Jesus is asking for a total and general sharing of all material posses-jns. He tried to educate the people to a detachment and carefree-ness about money and possessions. They should not worry about what they are to eat and how they are to clothe themselves (Mt 6: 25-33 par).
To the man who takes your cloak from you, do not
refuse your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you,
and do not ask for your property back from the
man who robs you. . . . Lend without any hope of
return. (Lk 6: 29-30,35)
When you have a party, invite the poor, the crippled,
the lame, the blind; that they cannot pay you back
means that you are fortunate. (Lk 14: 13-14)
But the best example of Jesus' attempts to educate the people to share what they had, was the miracle of the loaves and fishes (Mk 6: 35-44 parr). This incident was interpreted by the early Church and by all the evangelists as a miracle of multiplication — although this is never explicitly said by any of them. The customary way of drawing attention to a miracle is to say that the people were amazed, astonished or dumbfounded. In this case we are not told that anyone was amazed, astonished or dumbfounded; we are told that the disciples did not understand (Mk 6: 52; 8: 17-18, 21).2 The event has a deeper meaning. But the event itself was not a miracle of multiplication; it was a remarkable example of sharing.
Jesus was preaching to a large gathering of men in a lonely place. It was time to stop for a while to eat. Some had no doubt brought food, others not. He and his disciples had five loaves and two fish, but they suggest that the people be told to go and 'buy themselves something to eat'. Jesus says, No, 'You give them something to eat yourselves.' They protest but he tells the people to sit down in groups of fifty and taking the bread and the fish he tells his disciples to 'share it out'.

Hitch

May 30th 2005, 09:32 PM

Hmmmm and somehow this is similar to sendsing the sherff over with guns drawn to 'liberate' the bread of someone who 'has too much' ?

LOL

Captain Ochre

May 30th 2005, 10:12 PM

The following (rather long) passage is from a book entitled Jesus, before Christianity.

Congratulations on dodging my critique of what you wrote in favor of an appeal to an outside authority.
:wink:
I'll use quotation marks within the quotation box where I discern that the words are Nolan's. Here's the URL to this chapter of Nolan's.

I don't imagine that Wayne has this book in his possession. :smile:
More likely he cast about online for somebody to agree with him.

It was written by a South African priest, Albert Nolan. The selection is from chapter 7, The Kingdom and Money:

"The pursuit of wealth is diametrically opposed to the pursuit of God or the kingdom of God. Mammon and God are like two masters. If you love and serve the one, you must of necessity reject the other (Mt 6: 24 par; compare Mk 4: 19 parr). No compromise is possible. Jesus' sayings about money and possessions are frequently regarded as amongst the 'hardest' in the gospels. Most Christians tend to water them down. The most astounding statement about the kingdom of God is not that it was near but that it would be the kingdom of the poor and that the rich, as long as they remain rich, would have no part in it (Lk 6: 20-26)."

The verses that Nolan cites do not support his position. For example, the cited verses nowhere say that folks who remain rich can have no part in the kingdom of God.
http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/B42C006.htm

"It is as impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom as it would be for a camel (or is it a fisherman's rope?)1 to be threaded through the eye of a needle (Mk 10: 25 parr). Mark tells us that even Jesus' disciples were astounded by this (10: 24, 26). What kind of kingdom will this be?
'In that case', they said to one another, 'who can
be saved?' Jesus gazed at them.'For men', he said,
'it is impossible, but not for God: because everything
is possible for God.' (Mk 10: 26-27)
In other words it would take a miracle to get a rich man into the kingdom of God."

Mr. Nolan, the disciples wondered if it was possible for anybody to be saved! Jesus is answering that concern when he declares that man cannot do it, though with God anything is possible.
Bottom line: It takes a miracle whether you're rich or poor.

"And the miracle would not be getting him in with all his wealth, the miracle would be getting him to give up all his wealth so that he could enter a kingdom of the poor. This is what the rich young man in the gospel story was asked to do (Mk 10: 17-22 parr)."

Nolan is incorrect. The rich man was asked to give up his possessions because Jesus discerned his hangup: He loved his possessions. It would be incorrect to generalize this to all rich folk.

"But, because he had too little faith in the kingdom of God and relied too heavily upon financial security, the miracle did not take place. God's power was not able to work in him to achieve the impossible."

Nolan's obviously not a Calvinist.
:wink:

"There will be no place in the kingdom of God for the rich. There will be no rewards and no consolations there for them (Lk 6: 24-26). In the parable about the rich man and beggar, Lazarus, one is given no other reason why the rich man should be so dramatically excluded from all rewards except that he was rich and that he did not share his wealth with the beggar (Lk 16: 19-31)."

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke16.htm

Why appeal to ignorance when the context of the passage deals with the wealth of the pharisees and their hypocrisy? :huh:
It's a message to that audience.

"This too is all that this rich man wants to warn his brothers about.

The warning was to concern the suffering that awaited, not a warning to avoid being rich.

But who would believe it?
It follows that setting one's heart on the kingdom of God and subscribing to its values entails selling all one's possessions (Mt 6: 19-21, Lk 12: 33-34; 14: 33).

:lol:
No, it doesn't.
The citation in Matthew concerns one particular individual.
The latter citation in Luke does not advocate selling all of one's possessions (though selling at least some as an avenue toward the giving of alms is mentioned).
Give all of your possessions and the next thing you know you're a alms-receiver instead of an alms-giver.
Take the words of Jesus hyper-literally and you've got a reverse ponzi scheme. More and more alms-receivers rely on a shrinking number of alms-givers.
Take the words of Jesus as they seem to be intended, and it becomes apparent that if on is rich, then that person ought to be generous to others rather than miserly.

"Jesus expected his followers to leave everything: home, family, land, boats and nets (Mk 1: 18, 20 par; 10: 28-30 parr; Lk 5: 11). He warns them of the need to sit down anid count the cost first (Lk 14: 28-33)."

Nolan might as well be Wayne's inspiration for eisegesis in proof-texting.
Jesus asked his close disciples to leave everything, not his followers in general. They were to listen to his teachings so that they could memorize and apply them and later teach them.

"Something more than mere almsgiving is being demanded here. Jesus is asking for a total and general sharing of all material posses-jns. He tried to educate the people to a detachment and carefree-ness about money and possessions. They should not worry about what they are to eat and how they are to clothe themselves (Mt 6: 25-33 par).
To the man who takes your cloak from you, do not
refuse your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you,
and do not ask for your property back from the
man who robs you. . . . Lend without any hope of
return. (Lk 6: 29-30,35)
When you have a party, invite the poor, the crippled,
the lame, the blind; that they cannot pay you back
means that you are fortunate. (Lk 14: 13-14) "

Nolan is mixing the examples given of Jesus close (12) disciples with the teachings given to his other followers. Nolan is correct that Jesus downplays the worries of the people regarding their basic needs. OTOH, Jesus taught good stewardship at the same time. Nolan's claim that Jesus asked for "a total and general sharing of all material posses-ons [sic]" is not well-supported ... certainly not by either Nolan or Wayne.

"But the best example of Jesus' attempts to educate the people to share what they had, was the miracle of the loaves and fishes (Mk 6: 35-44 parr). This incident was interpreted by the early Church and by all the evangelists as a miracle of multiplication — although this is never explicitly said by any of them. The customary way of drawing attention to a miracle is to say that the people were amazed, astonished or dumbfounded. In this case we are not told that anyone was amazed, astonished or dumbfounded; we are told that the disciples did not understand (Mk 6: 52; 8: 17-18, 21).2 The event has a deeper meaning. But the event itself was not a miracle of multiplication; it was a remarkable example of sharing.
Jesus was preaching to a large gathering of men in a lonely place. It was time to stop for a while to eat. Some had no doubt brought food, others not. He and his disciples had five loaves and two fish, but they suggest that the people be told to go and 'buy themselves something to eat'. Jesus says, No, 'You give them something to eat yourselves.' They protest but he tells the people to sit down in groups of fifty and taking the bread and the fish he tells his disciples to 'share it out'.

:ahem:
41 And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all.

42 And they did all eat, and were filled.

43 And they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments, and of the fishes.
http://www.carm.org/kjv/Mark/mark_6.htm

14 Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf.

15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.

16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread.

17 And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened?

18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

19 When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.

20 And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven.

21 And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?
http://www.carm.org/kjv/Mark/mark_8.htm

It's a remarkable case of sharing if everybody gets some fish and bread starting with the amount that they had.
It's more than than when everybody is filled thereby.
Some might call it "multiplication".

iwayne

May 31st 2005, 06:42 AM

Congratulations on dodging my critique of what you wrote in favor of an appeal to an outside authority.
:wink:
I'll use quotation marks within the quotation box where I discern that the words are Nolan's. Here's the URL to this chapter of Nolan's.

I don't imagine that Wayne has this book in his possession. :smile:
More likely he cast about online for somebody to agree with him.

The verses that Nolan cites do not support his position. For example, the cited verses nowhere say that folks who remain rich can have no part in the kingdom of God.
http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/B42C006.htm

Mr. Nolan, the disciples wondered if it was possible for anybody to be saved! Jesus is answering that concern when he declares that man cannot do it, though with God anything is possible.
Bottom line: It takes a miracle whether you're rich or poor.

Nolan is incorrect. The rich man was asked to give up his possessions because Jesus discerned his hangup: He loved his possessions. It would be incorrect to generalize this to all rich folk.

Nolan's obviously not a Calvinist.
:wink:

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke16.htm

Why appeal to ignorance when the context of the passage deals with the wealth of the pharisees and their hypocrisy? :huh:
It's a message to that audience.

The warning was to concern the suffering that awaited, not a warning to avoid being rich.

:lol:
No, it doesn't.
The citation in Matthew concerns one particular individual.
The latter citation in Luke does not advocate selling all of one's possessions (though selling at least some as an avenue toward the giving of alms is mentioned).
Give all of your possessions and the next thing you know you're a alms-receiver instead of an alms-giver.
Take the words of Jesus hyper-literally and you've got a reverse ponzi scheme. More and more alms-receivers rely on a shrinking number of alms-givers.
Take the words of Jesus as they seem to be intended, and it becomes apparent that if on is rich, then that person ought to be generous to others rather than miserly.

Nolan might as well be Wayne's inspiration for eisegesis in proof-texting.
Jesus asked his close disciples to leave everything, not his followers in general. They were to listen to his teachings so that they could memorize and apply them and later teach them.

Nolan is mixing the examples given of Jesus close (12) disciples with the teachings given to his other followers. Nolan is correct that Jesus downplays the worries of the people regarding their basic needs. OTOH, Jesus taught good stewardship at the same time. Nolan's claim that Jesus asked for "a total and general sharing of all material posses-ons [sic]" is not well-supported ... certainly not by either Nolan or Wayne.

:ahem:
41 And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all.

42 And they did all eat, and were filled.

43 And they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments, and of the fishes.
http://www.carm.org/kjv/Mark/mark_6.htm

14 Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf.

15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.

16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread.

17 And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened?

18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

19 When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.

20 And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven.

21 And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?
http://www.carm.org/kjv/Mark/mark_8.htm

It's a remarkable case of sharing if everybody gets some fish and bread starting with the amount that they had.
It's more than than when everybody is filled thereby.
Some might call it "multiplication".

As a matter of fact I do own a copy of the book. That's how I was able to post such a large passage from it, by scanning.

Captain Ochre

May 31st 2005, 07:52 AM

As a matter of fact I do own a copy of the book. That's how I was able to post such a large passage from it, by scanning.

If you own a copy of the book, then all of my criticisms above have been invalidated.

It would have been easier to cut and paste from the online version than scanning it and converting it to a suitable form for inclusion in your post.

I'm not sure that you deserve the benefit of the doubt, Wayne.

At least we see that you're fairly adamant about not supporting your position with reason, if we can use your several responses in this thread as any indication.

iwayne

May 31st 2005, 09:03 AM

If you own a copy of the book, then all of my criticisms above have been invalidated.

It would have been easier to cut and paste from the online version than scanning it and converting it to a suitable form for inclusion in your post.

I'm not sure that you deserve the benefit of the doubt, Wayne.

At least we see that you're fairly adamant about not supporting your position with reason, if we can use your several responses in this thread as any indication.

It is easy to get the impression that many of the members of Tweb are simply disputatious. This reminds me of that line from the Desiderata:

“Avoid loud and aggressive persons,
they are vexations to the spirit.”

Although they may not be actually trying to be this way, this is what they feel like nevertheless.

I will make one last attempt to state my position on the kingdom of God.

1. The kingdom of God (KG) is different from the kingdoms of Man. If there were no difference, there would be no need to make the distinction.
2. The KG was once established on the earth under Moses.
3. The primary difference between KG and Man’s was the perception of God as the king; hence, the phrase.
4. KG failed.
5. John the Baptist and his cousin Jesus were both eager to re-establish KG (AS IT WAS UNDER MOSES, which I believe partly explains Jesus’ reluctance to embrace the messianic concept suggested by the “son of David” accolade that everyone seemed so eager to foist on him. On one occasion he plainly said that he had not come to destroy the law, a thing established under Moses, not David. The messianic dream was primarily a dream of the people, not a promise from God. But the law was unequivocally given to Moses by God. In other words, the law was unquestionable, but the messianic hope was).
6. The gospel writers record many instances of Jesus elaborating on the nature of KG.
7. One of the most notable features of KG was the place of the rich and the poor in it.

“Blessed are the poor
because yours is the kingdom of God.” (Luke 6:20)

“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24)

8. These verses do not refer to any “specific” rich or poor persons, simply to “the” rich or poor. And whether or not Jesus resorted to a form of hyperbole to make the point is irrelevant. The point is made nevertheless, and very clearly suggests that a certain equality will prevail in KG. Gross disparities in economic power will not be permitted. A rich person may enter, but they must leave their riches at the door, something very difficult to do, hence the comparison to a camel passing through the eye of a needle.

9. In today’s world, there are serious challenges to embracing the KG concept, especially as it was under Moses. The original KG, the one that Jesus was trying so hard to bring back, accommodated slavery. This is currently unthinkable. And it doesn’t seem to make any difference that the slaves were most likely not Hebrews, but citizens of neighboring kingdoms, captured as spoils of war, or whatever. There doesn’t seem to be any outcry on the part of Jesus with regard to slavery, unless of course it is suggested in his compassion for the poor, in his assurance to them that the kingdom was theirs. It is very strongly implied that the “good news” was good news for the poor. It certainly doesn’t sound like good news for the rich, a class of people notorious for taking advantage of the poor, many of whom were very likely slaves and/or servants.

Captain Ochre

May 31st 2005, 10:11 AM

It is easy to get the impression that many of the members of Tweb are simply disputatious. This reminds me of that line from the Desiderata:

“Avoid loud and aggressive persons,
they are vexations to the spirit.”

Although they may not be actually trying to be this way, this is what they feel like nevertheless.

I guess if you can't support your assertions with reason then you might feel as though you need to cast some blame on the person offering critique.

I will make one last attempt to state my position on the kingdom of God.

You've stated your position adequately, Wayne.
What's lacking is support for your position using rational thought.

1. The kingdom of God (KG) is different from the kingdoms of Man. If there were no difference, there would be no need to make the distinction.

As already discussed, this is vacuous since there is no reasonable attempt made to distinguish the difference in terms of economics--which has ostensibly been the point.

2. The KG was once established on the earth under Moses.

That system made use of representatives of the people (elders) and taxed rich and poor alike at the same rate (10%).

3. The primary difference between KG and Man’s was the perception of God as the king; hence, the phrase.

Thus any economic difference is a secondary difference at a most, and that economic system remains undifferentiated from a free market system.

4. KG failed.

In a manner of speaking, perhaps, but regardless #4 gives us no insight into the issue of economics.

5. John the Baptist and his cousin Jesus were both eager to re-establish KG (AS IT WAS UNDER MOSES, which I believe partly explains Jesus’ reluctance to embrace the messianic concept suggested by the “son of David” accolade that everyone seemed so eager to foist on him. On one occasion he plainly said that he had not come to destroy the law, a thing established under Moses, not David. The messianic dream was primarily a dream of the people, not a promise from God. But the law was unequivocally given to Moses by God. In other words, the law was unquestionable, but the messianic hope was).

And again, no insight into any supposed difference between economic systems.

6. The gospel writers record many instances of Jesus elaborating on the nature of KG.

Right, and many of them extoll the virtue of personal responsibility while reinforcing the notion of rewards commensurate with behaviors.
Both are congruent with free market economies.

7. One of the most notable features of KG was the place of the rich and the poor in it.

“Blessed are the poor
because yours is the kingdom of God.” (Luke 6:20)

“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24)

One of the most notable apart from the fact that God is the King in the kingdom, no doubt. :wink:
I might add that one of the most notable things about Wayne's use of scripture is the way he takes it out of context ...
"And raising his eyes toward his disciples he said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God is yours."
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke6.htm

We've already discussed the verse from Matthew. Correction: I've discussed it and you simply quote it as though it's obvious the it means that no rich man can attain the kingdom of God. Again, I point you to the example of Job and to the fact that Jesus is very probably using hyperbole to emphasize his point (that rich folk tend to place their riches above their dedication to God).

8. These verses do not refer to any “specific” rich or poor persons, simply to “the” rich or poor.

I was incorrect regarding my summation of the citation fromt the sixth chapter of Matthew (I was thinking of a different verse cited by Nolan).

Regardless, the citation by Nolan doesn't say what he takes it to say. The admonishment to not lay up treasures upon earth is not an admonishment to sell all of one's possessions.

And whether or not Jesus resorted to a form of hyperbole to make the point is irrelevant.

It most certainly is when somebody is citing that verse as indicating the position of the class of the rich in the kingdom of God. You're being disingenuous, Wayne.

The point is made nevertheless, and very clearly suggests that a certain equality will prevail in KG.

A "certain equality" that you seem to have great difficulty describing in any helpful manner, that is.

Gross disparities in economic power will not be permitted.

That assertion does not follow from any part of the preceding discussion (another non sequitur).

A rich person may enter, but they must leave their riches at the door, something very difficult to do, hence the comparison to a camel passing through the eye of a needle.

The cited verse referred to an admonishment not to lay up treasure on earth as opposed to treasures in heaven.
Is heaven the earthly kingdom of God according to Wayne, or have the cited verses somehow been taken out of context? :huh:
Why would an earthly kingdom have a door at which to leave one's possessions? Wouldn't it make more sense to turn the possessions over to the gatekeeper so that they could be distributed to all the poor in heaven?
:teeth:

9. In today’s world, there are serious challenges to embracing the KG concept, especially as it was under Moses. The original KG, the one that Jesus was trying so hard to bring back, accommodated slavery. This is currently unthinkable.

Nonsense. Credit card companies practice a perfect parallel to the typical type of ANE slavery, which involved owning the labor of another person through a loan. Only the interest wasn't as high back then and the year of Jubilee (iirc) never happens in today's system unless you've got a good bankruptcy lawyer.

And it doesn’t seem to make any difference that the slaves were most likely not Hebrews, but citizens of neighboring kingdoms, captured as spoils of war, or whatever.

Naturalization was an option for the typical slave, AFAIK, and I'm not sure how you judge that most of the slaves were from neighboring kingdoms. The mosaic law appears to give one set of laws regarding slavery which prescribe release in the seventh year on a continuous cycle. There are places where the verses do not provide a clear picture, however, (indicating a possible different set of rules for war prisoners). Let's not just assume things, eh?

There doesn’t seem to be any outcry on the part of Jesus with regard to slavery, unless of course it is suggested in his compassion for the poor, in his assurance to them that the kingdom was theirs.

I haven't seen you complaining about credit card debt, OTOH.

It is very strongly implied that the “good news” was good news for the poor. It certainly doesn’t sound like good news for the rich, a class of people notorious for taking advantage of the poor, many of whom were very likely slaves and/or servants.

You're wearing economic blinders, Wayne.
I suggested that you consider sin as a key area of difference between God's kingdom and others ... but that suggestion seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

iwayne

May 31st 2005, 12:05 PM

I guess if you can't support your assertions with reason then you might feel as though you need to cast some blame on the person offering critique.

You've stated your position adequately, Wayne.
What's lacking is support for your position using rational thought.

As already discussed, this is vacuous since there is no reasonable attempt made to distinguish the difference in terms of economics--which has ostensibly been the point.

That system made use of representatives of the people (elders) and taxed rich and poor alike at the same rate (10%).

Thus any economic difference is a secondary difference at a most, and that economic system remains undifferentiated from a free market system.

In a manner of speaking, perhaps, but regardless #4 gives us no insight into the issue of economics.

And again, no insight into any supposed difference between economic systems.

Right, and many of them extoll the virtue of personal responsibility while reinforcing the notion of rewards commensurate with behaviors.
Both are congruent with free market economies.

One of the most notable apart from the fact that God is the King in the kingdom, no doubt. :wink:
I might add that one of the most notable things about Wayne's use of scripture is the way he takes it out of context ...
"And raising his eyes toward his disciples he said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God is yours."
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke6.htm

We've already discussed the verse from Matthew. Correction: I've discussed it and you simply quote it as though it's obvious the it means that no rich man can attain the kingdom of God. Again, I point you to the example of Job and to the fact that Jesus is very probably using hyperbole to emphasize his point (that rich folk tend to place their riches above their dedication to God).

I was incorrect regarding my summation of the citation fromt the sixth chapter of Matthew (I was thinking of a different verse cited by Nolan).

Regardless, the citation by Nolan doesn't say what he takes it to say. The admonishment to not lay up treasures upon earth is not an admonishment to sell all of one's possessions.

It most certainly is when somebody is citing that verse as indicating the position of the class of the rich in the kingdom of God. You're being disingenuous, Wayne.

A "certain equality" that you seem to have great difficulty describing in any helpful manner, that is.

That assertion does not follow from any part of the preceding discussion (another non sequitur).

The cited verse referred to an admonishment not to lay up treasure on earth as opposed to treasures in heaven.
Is heaven the earthly kingdom of God according to Wayne, or have the cited verses somehow been taken out of context? :huh:
Why would an earthly kingdom have a door at which to leave one's possessions? Wouldn't it make more sense to turn the possessions over to the gatekeeper so that they could be distributed to all the poor in heaven?
:teeth:

Nonsense. Credit card companies practice a perfect parallel to the typical type of ANE slavery, which involved owning the labor of another person through a loan. Only the interest wasn't as high back then and the year of Jubilee (iirc) never happens in today's system unless you've got a good bankruptcy lawyer.

Naturalization was an option for the typical slave, AFAIK, and I'm not sure how you judge that most of the slaves were from neighboring kingdoms. The mosaic law appears to give one set of laws regarding slavery which prescribe release in the seventh year on a continuous cycle. There are places where the verses do not provide a clear picture, however, (indicating a possible different set of rules for war prisoners). Let's not just assume things, eh?

I haven't seen you complaining about credit card debt, OTOH.

You're wearing economic blinders, Wayne.
I suggested that you consider sin as a key area of difference between God's kingdom and others ... but that suggestion seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

The KG will surely be authoritarian in scope, not a democracy of the people as practiced in the US. Authoritarian states typically do not support voting, or economic free-for-alls. As the law was engraved in stone, the rules for managing KG, the law, are inviolable. One of those laws specifically addressed the poor, commonly referred to as "widows and orphans."

Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. (Exodus 22:22-25)

Afflicting the poor was a capital offense, punishable by death.

The first chapter of Isaiah deals harshly with Judah at a time when that nation (God's kingdom) was in a state of deterioration. The oracle of God deals rather sternly with that nation, describing the reasons for its decline. A list of "sins" is given, followed by advice on how to correct the problem. Included in that list (twice) is the neglect of orphans and widows:

Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. (Isaiah 1:17)

Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them. (Isaiah 1:23)

God plainly told Judah, through Isaiah, that at least one of the primary reasons the country was in such disarray was because of the neglect of the poor. Other reasons were given, to be sure, but the problem of the poor was always on the list.

In the NT, the brother of Jesus describes pure religion in terms of caring for the poor:

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27)

Whether it's the OT or NT, doesn't matter. The common theme of caring for (taking responsibility for) the poor seems to run throughout the Bible.

The authoritarian state of KG would enforce the practice. According to OT, it would do so in the harshest terms.

Captain Ochre

May 31st 2005, 09:31 PM

The KG will surely be authoritarian in scope, not a democracy of the people as practiced in the US. Authoritarian states typically do not support voting, or economic free-for-alls. As the law was engraved in stone, the rules for managing KG, the law, are inviolable. One of those laws specifically addressed the poor, commonly referred to as "widows and orphans."

Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. (Exodus 22:22-25)

Afflicting the poor was a capital offense, punishable by death.

The first chapter of Isaiah deals harshly with Judah at a time when that nation (God's kingdom) was in a state of deterioration. The oracle of God deals rather sternly with that nation, describing the reasons for its decline. A list of "sins" is given, followed by advice on how to correct the problem. Included in that list (twice) is the neglect of orphans and widows:

Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. (Isaiah 1:17)

Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them. (Isaiah 1:23)

God plainly told Judah, through Isaiah, that at least one of the primary reasons the country was in such disarray was because of the neglect of the poor. Other reasons were given, to be sure, but the problem of the poor was always on the list.

In the NT, the brother of Jesus describes pure religion in terms of caring for the poor:

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27)

Whether it's the OT or NT, doesn't matter. The common theme of caring for (taking responsibility for) the poor seems to run throughout the Bible.

The authoritarian state of KG would enforce the practice. According to OT, it would do so in the harshest terms.

I've got a great idea: You ignore what I write for purposes of your reply, and then I'll return the favor.

I guess if you can't support your assertions with reason then you might feel as though you need to cast some blame on the person offering critique.

You've stated your position adequately, Wayne.
What's lacking is support for your position using rational thought.

As already discussed, this is vacuous since there is no reasonable attempt made to distinguish the difference in terms of economics--which has ostensibly been the point.

That system made use of representatives of the people (elders) and taxed rich and poor alike at the same rate (10%).

Thus any economic difference is a secondary difference at a most, and that economic system remains undifferentiated from a free market system.

In a manner of speaking, perhaps, but regardless #4 gives us no insight into the issue of economics.

And again, no insight into any supposed difference between economic systems.

Right, and many of them extoll the virtue of personal responsibility while reinforcing the notion of rewards commensurate with behaviors.
Both are congruent with free market economies.

One of the most notable apart from the fact that God is the King in the kingdom, no doubt.
I might add that one of the most notable things about Wayne's use of scripture is the way he takes it out of context ...
"And raising his eyes toward his disciples he said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God is yours."
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke6.htm

We've already discussed the verse from Matthew. Correction: I've discussed it and you simply quote it as though it's obvious the it means that no rich man can attain the kingdom of God. Again, I point you to the example of Job and to the fact that Jesus is very probably using hyperbole to emphasize his point (that rich folk tend to place their riches above their dedication to God).

I was incorrect regarding my summation of the citation fromt the sixth chapter of Matthew (I was thinking of a different verse cited by Nolan).

Regardless, the citation by Nolan doesn't say what he takes it to say. The admonishment to not lay up treasures upon earth is not an admonishment to sell all of one's possessions.

It most certainly is when somebody is citing that verse as indicating the position of the class of the rich in the kingdom of God. You're being disingenuous, Wayne.

A "certain equality" that you seem to have great difficulty describing in any helpful manner, that is.

That assertion does not follow from any part of the preceding discussion (another non sequitur).

The cited verse referred to an admonishment not to lay up treasure on earth as opposed to treasures in heaven.
Is heaven the earthly kingdom of God according to Wayne, or have the cited verses somehow been taken out of context?
Why would an earthly kingdom have a door at which to leave one's possessions? Wouldn't it make more sense to turn the possessions over to the gatekeeper so that they could be distributed to all the poor in heaven?

Nonsense. Credit card companies practice a perfect parallel to the typical type of ANE slavery, which involved owning the labor of another person through a loan. Only the interest wasn't as high back then and the year of Jubilee (iirc) never happens in today's system unless you've got a good bankruptcy lawyer.

Naturalization was an option for the typical slave, AFAIK, and I'm not sure how you judge that most of the slaves were from neighboring kingdoms. The mosaic law appears to give one set of laws regarding slavery which prescribe release in the seventh year on a continuous cycle. There are places where the verses do not provide a clear picture, however, (indicating a possible different set of rules for war prisoners). Let's not just assume things, eh?

I haven't seen you complaining about credit card debt, OTOH.

You're wearing economic blinders, Wayne.
I suggested that you consider sin as a key area of difference between God's kingdom and others ... but that suggestion seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

Ned Netterville

August 11th 2005, 05:23 PM

I have browsed this thread unsuccessfully to find a correct definition of economics.

In his magnum opus, entitled HUMAN ACTION, (Yale U. Press, 1948) the brilliant Austian-school economist Ludwig von Mises described economics as "the youngest of all sciences...Economics opened to human science a domain previously inaccessible and never thought of. The discovery of a regularity in the sequence and interdependence of market phenomena went beyond the limits of the traditional system of learning. It conveyed knowledge which could be regarded neither as logic, mathematics, psychology, physics, nor biology...

"It is the science of every kind of human action. Choosing determines all human decisions. In making his choice man chooses not only between various material things and services. All human values are offered for option. All ends and all means, both material and ideal issues, the sublime and the base, the noble and the ignoble, are ranged in a single row and subjected to a dicision which picks out one thing and sets aside another. Nothing that men aim at or want to avoid remains outside this arrangement into a unique scale of gradation and preference. The modern theory of value widens the scientific horizone and enlarges the field of economic studies. Out of the political economy of the classical school emerges the general theory of human action, praxeology. The economic or catallactic problems are embedded in a more general science, and can no longer be severed from this connection. No treatment of economic problems proper can avoid starting from acts of choice; economics becomes a part, although the hitherto best elaborated part, of a more universal science, praxeology...

"Economics is a theoretical science and as such abstains from any judgment of value. It is not its task to tell people what ends they should aim at. It is a science to be applied for the attainment of ends chosen, not, to be sure, a science of the choosing of ends. Ultimate decisions, the valuations and the choosing of ends, are beyond the scope of any science. Science never tells a man how he should act; it merely shows how a man must act if he wants to attain definite ends."

The principles that Jesus taught his followers, particularly in his Sermon on the Mount and his Sermon on the Plain, do tells us how we should act. And if we were to follow his instructions in our intercourse with other people, we would necessarily have to renounce the use of force in the conduct of our affairs, and that would make capitalists of all of us. For capitalism is the only system of economic exchange that is possible in the absence of force and violence. Any and all of the other socio-economic arrangements--socialism, communism, mixed, syndicalism, guild socialism, corporativism, etc.--require the initiation of force by the state and are incompatible with the principles Jesus espoused. Of course if people were to adapt the principles that Jesus taught, capitalist society would be very different from what exists today, but it would be capitalist nonetheless.

Many of the issues that have been raised in this thread are addressed in my essay, JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER, which may be downloaded without charge from website, http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com (http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/), which I invite you all to read. Rest assured that the hypotheses presented there in are amply supported by Scripture and other recognized authorities.

Thomas2003

August 15th 2005, 10:14 PM

I am fairly new to this forum, so save me some time if this subject has been covered before by directing me to the proper forum.

I recently published a book entitled Scripture. Its subtitle is

Its political, economic and spiritual force

One of the ideas I tried to develop in the book (in the chapter titled Biblical Economics) centers around the strong economic implications in the Bible. Yes, I know, the word "economics" is not in the Bible, but I feel nonetheless that it is filled with very strong economic persuasions. The way I understand it, economics is ultimately based on resources. In fact, we could probably define economics as a system for managing ressources, specifically the sharing and distribution of those resources. I don't remember if I've ever looked it up in a concordance, but I don't believe the word "resources" is in the Bible either. And if it is, it probably isn't used in an economic sense. But although the word is not there, resources are clearly referred to, in Psalms 24:

The earth is the Lord's
and the fullness thereof.

Resources are all derived from the planet we live on. The Bible clearly states that that planet belongs to God, and the fullness thereof.

The point is really simple. All wealth is derived from resources. It doesn't matter how clever you are, how well educated or what kind of entrepreneurial skills you are blessed with. If you have become wealthy you have done so with the resources of this planet. But according to the Bible you don't own the resources of this planet. God does.

The earth is the Lord's
and the fullness thereof.

The argument could therefore be made that all of your wealth actually belongs to God, because you used His resources to become wealthy.

It could be compared to you finding a nice piece of land somewhere and planting, let's say tomatoes, and then selling your tomatoes and making a lot of money. Say I come along one day and find you selling your tomatoes by the roadside. Let's also say that I own the land that you grew your tomatoes on. I have every right to look at you and what you're doing and say, "That money you made from growing and selling tomatoes is mine. I have every right to confiscate all of your product and all of your earnings. What you accompished here - on my land - is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is the fact that the property is mine."

Legally, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

The bible clearly suggests an unassailable economic principle:

The resources don't belong to anyone, but we all have to use them.

All wealth is derived from resources. If someone becomes wealthy, they do so with something that doesn't belong to them, with the blessings of a government that allows it. If a government does nothing else, it should strictly manage its resources to the benefit of all its citizens. This economic principle is also in the Bible:

Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. If you do, and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless. (Exodus 22)

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (Letter of James)

There was no separation of church and state in biblical days. The above admonitions, one from the OT, one from the NT, are for the Nation of Israel. God made it clear that He would not tolerate the abuse of the poor (fatherless and widowed) by the more advantaged. This policy was an important part of the original kingdom of God set up under Moses and strongly reinforced by Jesus in the NT in his efforts to reestablish that kingdom:

Blessed are you poor
for yours is the kingdom of God

Having said this, I would like to ask the Christians who participate in this forum why they invariably support the Republican party, a party which clearly indicates that

Blessed are you rich
for yours is the kingdom of God?

Dear Sir,

I like your idea, I disagree with most of your conclusions - but is your book available somewhere? I am also writing a book, it is called the "Economics of Justification by Faith," actually I'll probably put this into an education course than a book, but it will have a curriculum behind it.

Where I found disagreement begins with your definition of economics, then proceeds from there. For example, you conclude there was no "separation of Church and State" in biblical days, but this Christian doctrine is derived directly from Israel and it's separation of ecclesiastical and civil polity. Now, please understand, I'm not referring to the Marxist re-definition of this Christian doctrine foisted by the Supreme Court of the United States - but the actual political concept of an independence flowing as a requirement from Chalcedonian orthodoxy that the Founding Fathers were so dedicated to. John Adams, for example, in writing Thomas Jefferson and discussing the War for Independence stated that he agreed with Thomas that the Revolution began long before 1776, in his view back in 1620 upon the doctrine of an independence of Church and Parliament. He said that principle burned at the base of the Revolution. When you view it in it's proper context the Revolution was a counter-revolution against the Glorius Revolution of 1688 and the Divine Right of Kings. The demand for a separation was critical to the Founding just as much as it is critical to our restoration today, that is to say we must reject the Marxist re-definition of this doctrine enforced against us and insure that a true independence of Church and State is established in America. Without this we can never have any Christian progress.

There were many other similar things I had problems with, but I'd like to read your book if it is available.

Cordially,

Thomas

Thomas2003

August 15th 2005, 10:22 PM

Thomas2003

August 15th 2005, 10:25 PM

1. not the same wayne

2. my objective is the criticism of the average gun-toting redneck christian republicans who support the platform primarily because of its stance on abortion and gay marriage. I believe voting decisions should be based more on economic policies than moral agendas. I am not gay (trust me), but I would not base my decision to vote for someone just because they happened to support the right to gay marriage. I am not a christian either, but I know something about christianity (I used to be one), at least what it ostensibly represents. When Jesus promoted the kingdom of God he was not talking about going to heaven. He was talking about re-establishing the same kingdom that Moses had set up , the one that had so miserably failed. He was talking about setting up a kingdom on the earth, in the same spot where it had previously been set up. One of the things he clearly said about that kingdom was that it would be nigh impossible for a rich man to enter it. He plainly stated that it belonged to the poor, not the poor in spirit as the tax-collector Matthew tries to have us believe. It's true, there may be as many wealthy Democrats as Republicans in the Senate, maybe more, but that fact alone is irrelevant. Whether they mean it or not, the Democrats are at least talking about taking care of the less advantaged. The Republicans do everything they can to pad the wallets of the wealthy.

By the way, your comments on labor did not go unnoticed by the author of the 24th psalm. The remainder of the verse mentions human labor:

The earth is the Lord's
and all its fullness
The world
and those who dwell therein.

The resources and the labor necessary to develop them both belong to God. According to the preaching of Jesus, it is easy to get the impression that if he had succeeded in setting up the kingdom in the way he had in mind, that both the resources and the labor would have been managed accordingly, as if they both belonged to God. The result would be an equal distribution of those resources regardless of the nature of work. In other words, doctors (if there would even be doctors in the kingdom of God) would not receive more pay for their services than teachers or car mechanics. Same for lawyers, heads of state, entrepreneurs or anyone else.

This is funny, I thought from your original post you were a honest guy with just some wrong understandings of Scripture to make the conclusions you explained. Oooopppppsssss......
:teeth: