Propeganda: a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid (wikipedia)
No. It’s it’s not really part of my claim that they didn’t get with the money-sharing programme and were therefore punished, but to show that there was a money-sharing programme, a la socialism
You mean “No other AT THAT TIME…” there have been very many Christian communities that have been socialistic (see Post #7)
What about married priests? Can they bequeath their wealth to theif kids?
That’s ‘socialism’ only as it is manifested by atheist socialists.
These are in regards to one’s own disposition; transforming one’s own heart and not the institution of government programs.
Where in Scripture do the Apostles or Jesus Christ speak out against the existence of the “slave class?”
Surely we don’t have to discuss the fallacy of Sola Scriptura.
Did that somehow relate to this thread?
Again, ill summarise some of the unfounded assertions you have made. These were in reference to the Church in Jerusalem.
There is no evidence of any Christian socialist community outside Jerusalem.
Acts
Again, there is no evidence of a Christian socialist community elsewhere – and Paul makes it clear in his first letter to Timothy that such communities don’t exist elsewhere.
I’ve already quoted from Paul’s epistles, showing his continuous solicitiation of money for the “saints in Jerusalem.”
And we have no evidence of hte practice extending beyond Jerusalem. If you have scriptural evidence that the Romans, Galatians, Corinthians, and so on practiced socialism, trot it out.
Once again, we see Paul constantly collecting money for Jerusalem – and not for any other Christian community.
And you have failed in your pretense that I have not supported it.
Outside of the tens of thousands of monasteries, convents and presbyteries that have existed for over 2000 that have been based upon a economic collective
Why would charity be incomprehensible in a socialist community? Socialism gave birth to the welfare state
Granted, verse one indicates an unfair distribution of goods. The reason for this is clear; there was a cultural/racial conflict within the church. It is clear from the text that those who were distributing resources were mistreating some members of the community because of this conflict. The text goes on to say that this issue was** resolved**, the problem was that a political issue affected the socialist model, not that the socialist model was the root of the cause. ALL institutions are vulnerable to men with evil intent.
Could you please be a bit more specific?
We are Catholic, we do not adhere to Sola Scriptura. Does scripture state that Jerusalem was the only community ever in need of financial support?
You see the need for funds as a sign that the socialist system itself has broken down? Does scripture ever suggest a fault within the system? Who knows what social/ economic strains the church in Jerusalem was under. (See post 58)
Monasteries are not typical Christian communities. They are communities of religious who have removed themselves from society. And monasteries did not exist in the First Century.
Socialism takes the place of charity!1 If the Church takes over everyone’s posessions, and gives them to those who need them, there is no charity.
And yet socialism did not spread – as Paul makes clear.
As I’ve already pointed out, Paul makes it clear that charity is not to be given to everyone – only to “true widows.” Clearly, not everyone is on the dole!!
Where is your evidence, in scripture or tradition, that there was a constant need for collections for any Christian community **other **than Jerusalem?
Who knows? We knows!
We weren’t discussing standard Christian communities; we were discussing the Church (in its entirety). Your assertion was that the Church had abolished socialism. Unless monasteries are not part of the Church then it is the case that the Church still accepts socialism as an acceptable economic model.
Ok Ill give you that one.
Come on sir, that was a cheap shot. A verb never denotes a future action.
I never said there was evidence in my favour, I merely said that there is no evidence to support your position
No we dont. There could have been a disproportionate number of destitute Christians which the Church was required to support. Jerusalem could have been in economic decline. There could be any number of factors that may have lead to their need for support. To suggest that the system itself was at fault is really clutching at straws.
When you try to blow smoke up me kilts like that, it tickles.
That doesn’t even make sense.
And I proved you wrong.
So show that Jerusalem was in economic decline during Paul’s mission. Again, the ball’s in your court.
So list those factors and show they existed.
No, saying things like, “Jerusalem could have been in economic decline” is grasping at straws.
Im sorry Sir, but here comes another one of those definitions
You realize your argument is disintegrating?
Prove it. Remember, having made this assertion, the burden of proof is on you.
By no means are all nuns and priests “socialists.”