-Removed-If you read my previous few posts, you will see that I do not claim it is "the true way." I do not think there is a true way. There are only useful ways.
Part of my approach is to narrow the seemingly uncrossable chasm between the religious and the non-religious. The way Christianity is currently conceived forces one into either extreme. A victory for one is a defeat for the other. If Christianity could be stripped of its first century mythology and updated, we may find some common ground between the two camps. If we drop the pretense that Christianity is true, it may end up being more useful to a greater number of people.
-Removed-As my vision is essentially a communal one, it cannot be lived by one man in isolation. I can declare my house to be the "kingdom of God" (as I conceive it), but if it remains just my wife and I then its just semantics. So I tirelessly spread the word, brother, so that others may share in that vision.
I did live in an intentional, egalitarian community for about a year. But that was a long time ago.
Originally posted by rwingettI suspect that you are using the wrong approach. If you want people to take an interest in your views on socialism then you are better off writing about them independent of religion. If you say that you got the idea from Jesus and that it was what Jesus was really all about then you risk alienating Christians and atheists in one go.
Part of my approach is to narrow the seemingly uncrossable chasm between the religious and the non-religious. The way Christianity is currently conceived forces one into either extreme. A victory for one is a defeat for the other. If Christianity could be stripped of its first century mythology and updated, we may find some common ground between the two cam ...[text shortened]... that Christianity is true, it may end up being more useful to a greater number of people.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think socialism can work just fine without religion. And it can work just as well within a religious context. People try to draw the battle lines between secularists on the one hand and religious people on the other, but I don't think that is the proper division. I think secularists and liberal Christians would make better allies against the common fundamentalist, literalist, evangelical Christian foe. I don't think belief in a god in and of itself is necessarily a bad thing. Its what you do based on that belief that makes it potentially bad.
I suspect that you are using the wrong approach. If you want people to take an interest in your views on socialism then you are better off writing about them independent of religion. If you say that you got the idea from Jesus and that it was what Jesus was really all about then you risk alienating Christians and atheists in one go.
More Christians used to be liberal Christians. But the so called "science wars" have polarized the debate to a large extent. The liberal Christians have largely either become secularists or fundamentalists, leaving no one left in the middle. It's up to Christians to reject that false division and reject the moral bankruptcy of fundamentalism and move themselves away from the outer fringes of society and back into the mainstream. If they are going to persist in railing on blindly against evolution then they are going to be relegating themselves into obsolescence.
Originally posted by daniel58Tell me what you think of the following bible passages. With this selling of possessions and holding all things in common and distributing to every man as he had need, doesn't that sound like socialism to you? Do you realize that there are many, many passages in the bible where Jesus condemns the rich and praises the poor, but only one or two that could be interpreted as being "anti-gay." By that ratio it seems that Christians should spend most of their time attacking the rich and very little of their time attacking gays (if at all).
1. Jesus was not a socialist.
2. Everone should pray in front of crucifixes or good pictures or something like that.
3. I don't think that becuase you are gay means you should die or anything like that, but just stop being gay.
Acts 2:42-44
42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Acts 4:32-37:
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 edits
Originally posted by rwingett==============================
Tell me what you think of the following bible passages. With this selling of possessions and holding all things in common and distributing to every man as he had need, doesn't that sound like socialism to you? Do you realize that there are many, many passages in the bible where Jesus condemns the rich and praises the poor, but only one or two that could be Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
Acts 2:42-44
42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
=================================
1.) Continuing steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine -
Some forms of Socialism wouldn't give the apostle's doctrine a moment's worth of attention. Why should they be interested in the doctrine of the incarnation, redemptive death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus the Son of God.
To be fair though some other Socialist thinkers would be interested in it.
2.) in prayers - Some Socialists would have absolutely no use for "prayers".
Atheism use to be the offical state religion of Albania when it was in the Soviet Socialist Republic. Those socialists would typically not be interested in prayers.
3.) breaking bread - if this means the Lord's Table bread some socialists would not care about keeping the Lord's bread breaking meeting.
If by "breaking bread" Acts just meant eating together, sure Socialists might adopt that as their practice too.
4.) having all things in common - Some Communists and Socialists would be interested in this.
5.) "selling all ... and distributing to the poor" I don't know that much about how Socialism works. Possibly this would be of interest to them. But you have to sell to someone who is outside of the Socialist system as far as I can figure.
As said before some Socialism looks like what the early church praciticed in this regard.
Deducing from this that "Jesus was a Socialist" is kind of like saying He was a Japanese martial arts master because he could pass through the crowd without them being able to touch Him (Luke 4:29,30)
Don't laugh. Someone suggested that Jesus knew Ikedo because of this very passage.