Originally posted by rwingettI believe home ownership was pushed so strongly in America precisely for this reason - ie a home owner - or rather someone with a big mortgage, is less likely to go on strike or be involved in labour unrest. It has the unfortunate side effect that it encourages sprawling environmentally unfriendly car-centric cities and a less mobile work force.
Although your home is perhaps the biggest link in the chain that binds you to that system of iniquities, ....
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAccording to the Holy Bible the earth or land ultimately belongs to God, for He is the creator and maker. But God has given temporary possession of portions of land to various people and it is clear from Genesis that mankind was created to be the caretakers of the land.
I believe home ownership was pushed so strongly in America precisely for this reason - ie a home owner - or rather someone with a big mortgage, is less likely to go on strike or be involved in labour unrest. It has the unfortunate side effect that it encourages sprawling environmentally unfriendly car-centric cities and a less mobile work force.
There are many places in the New Testament that land and home ownership is recognized. For example, the verses in the book of Acts, that were previously posted, mentions the selling of land which some of the Christians owned in order to benefit all the members of the church. The early churches were spoken of as being in peoples houses (Romans 16:5) . A plot of ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph is mentioned in John 4:5. The disciples are said to have gone back to their own homes in John 20:10. I am not going to try to look all the verses up, but Jesus entered into certain people's homes, etc.
I found the following through google that I found interesting:
For Karl Marx, the two great enemies were the Biblical God and the family. He saw these two enemies linked together as the great champions of private property. Private ownership of property was for Marx and Engels the cornerstone of the family, and the family the key institution of Biblical religion. To abolish private ownership of property, Christianity had to be attacked.
Marx and Engels were right in that they knew who their real enemies were. The Bible protects property in two of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house … nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” But this is not all. The Mosaic law had no property tax: a man, rich or poor, was made secure in his house and land from dispossession or seizure, and the Levitical laws emphasized this heavily. Man’s basic security the Biblical law saw as resting in the private possession of property without the possibility of confiscation. The American colonies deliberately followed the Biblical law and avoided any property tax in any form. In some states, there was no property tax until after the Civil War. Recently, Nebraska abolished both the state property tax and the state income tax. The Liberty Bell carries a verse from the Bible’s law of property: “proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof” (Lev. 25:10).
Wherever private property disappears, man’s liberty is gone. Man is placed completely at the mercy of the state. Wherever private ownership is weakened, man’s liberty is weakened also. There is an essential relationship between liberty and property. The American colonists saw this. One of the slogans of the War of Independence was “Liberty and Property.” Every attack on the private ownership of property is therefore an attack on liberty. It is an attempt to destroy the independence of man from the state, from the tyranny of civil governments. It is especially important for tyrants to destroy private ownership of farming property, either by direct confiscation or by indirection, by controls. In every age, one of the primary targets of dictatorship has been to control the farmer.
The attack on private ownership is also an attack on the family because it destroys the family’s independence and makes its members dependent instead on the state. The state takes the place of the father as the provider.
The attack on private ownership is also an attack on God because it despises His law and substitutes for it man’s humanistic and socialistic law. The defense of private ownership is both a healthy and a necessary religious step. It is the defense of a way of life ordered by God for the welfare and happiness of mankind. The right to property is a God-given right. Ownership is evidence of work and character. Every attempt to limit the right of ownership is a form of theft, and the Bible says clearly: “Thou shalt not steal.”
http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/the-bible-and-property/
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by RJHindsam i supposed to read all this then argue with you like it was your opinion? f**** off i know you are getting old but there is no excuse for your cut and paste apathy.
According to the Holy Bible the earth or land ultimately belongs to God, for He is the creator and maker. But God has given temporary possession of portions of land to various people and it is clear from Genesis that mankind was created to be the caretakers of the land.
There are many places in the New Testament that land and home ownership is recognized ...[text shortened]... arly: “Thou shalt not steal.”
http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/the-bible-and-property/
Originally posted by RJHinds"There are many places in the New Testament that land and home ownership is recognized. For example, the verses in the book of Acts, that were previously posted, mentions the selling of land which some of the Christians owned in order to benefit all the members of the church."
According to the Holy Bible the earth or land ultimately belongs to God, for He is the creator and maker. But God has given temporary possession of portions of land to various people and it is clear from Genesis that mankind was created to be the caretakers of the land.
There are many places in the New Testament that land and home ownership is recognized ...[text shortened]... arly: “Thou shalt not steal.”
http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/the-bible-and-property/
This is an interesting example, as it suggests that the benefit of the community is what mattered in the verse. Of course the Bible admonition to render unto Caesar might place the question of private versus communal ownership under the state, not God.
IOW, if a community opted for communal ownership of land, this would not offend God. Why would it? Are tenant-in-common arrangements un-Biblical? (Of course Caesar may require a title specifying the ownership by the community as a corporation, in the US anyway.) But what's wrong with this, Biblically speaking?
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357I own two houses, including the land property, that the city/county government makes me pay taxes on. So I see nothing wrong with individuals, like myself and the early Christians and Jews spoken of in the Bible, owning and leaving land as an inheritance. I just don't believe it should be taxed by the government, but I am not making a big fuss about it either. In America, Churches own the land and the building that they meet own. I do not know of any Church that leases the property, even though there may be some. I am not against Business and corporations owning land either. It is some of the other posters on this forum that have a problem with it, not me.
"There are many places in the New Testament that land and home ownership is recognized. For example, the verses in the book of Acts, that were previously posted, mentions the selling of land which some of the Christians owned in order to benefit all the members of the church."
This is an interesting example, as it suggests that the benefit of the community ...[text shortened]... mmunity as a corporation, in the US anyway.) But what's wrong with this, Biblically speaking?
Originally posted by stellspalfieIt is never about what others have as it is how they got it, if they earned it by effort
where would you be without the 'fair police' at the boston tea party? or the french revolution?
is you have no problem with how much money a person can own. how would you feel if 1 person had 99.9% of the planets money?
on a level playing ground for everyone else, more power to them. I do not begruge
anyone their wealth, I'm of the opinion that the more wealthy people we have the
better off we all are. What is it to me that someone else has money?
With respect to the tea party at Boston, that was about a level playing field. If you
work for your money good for you, if you steal from another different story.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayProperty ownership and wealth disparity create an un-level playing field by their very nature. The rich have an advantage over the poor - and in the last 20 years or so we are seeing them taking advantage of that to great effect.
It is never about what others have as it is how they got it, if they earned it by effort
on a level playing ground for everyone else, more power to them.
This is one of my objections to countries and their immigration policies. Exploitation of poor countries is a lot easier and more likely to continue if the citizens can be restricted from moving. In Zambia right now we have a situation where Europe is basically stealing all our copper. This is being enabled by the fact that they are richer than us and are able to manipulate us (via politics) effectively.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWealth can be measured in many ways.
, I'm of the opinion that the more wealthy people we have the
better off we all are. What is it to me that someone else has money?
Money.
Happiness.
Property.
Land.
Money is limitless
Happiness is limitless
Property is virtually limitless
Land is finite
Do we want a future where the land is owned by a single individual?
(Because that is the eventual outcome of current systems)
2 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59Who is saying if we allow land to be owned it will mean a single individual will
Wealth can be measured in many ways.
Money.
Happiness.
Property.
Land.
Money is limitless
Happiness is limitless
Property is virtually limitless
Land is finite
Do we want a future where the land is owned by a single individual?
(Because that is the eventual outcome of current systems)
own it all? Where in the world did that come from? I don't care where you look
in history a "man" or even a "system" all come and go. They take nothing with
them when they die or fall apart.
There is a lot of land and if you own some, good for you! I own a home and that
means what to you? You have some magic ball that tells the future that says
all the land is going to be owned by someone? You have to have more than that
going for you. I'd also disagree that money is limitless, you print enough of it you
may have tons, but it will be worthless. I would also disagree with your other
statements too. No one I know has limitless happiness, if you live long enough all
that brings you happiness will end at some point and you'll deal with sadness too
such is the way of life here.
So why would owning land be wrong beyond some future guy is going to own it all?
Kelly
Originally posted by wolfgang59I guess that one individual person will be Jesus. 😏
Wealth can be measured in many ways.
Money.
Happiness.
Property.
Land.
Money is limitless
Happiness is limitless
Property is virtually limitless
Land is finite
Do we want a future where the land is owned by a single individual?
(Because that is the eventual outcome of current systems)
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by KellyJaydo you believe that there is an unlimited or limited amount of money in the world?
It is never about what others have as it is how they got it, if they earned it by effort
on a level playing ground for everyone else, more power to them. I do not begruge
anyone their wealth, I'm of the opinion that the more wealthy people we have the
better off we all are. What is it to me that someone else has money?
With respect to the tea party at ...[text shortened]... ld. If you
work for your money good for you, if you steal from another different story.
Kelly