Do these people never learn?! Frist backs Ban on Gay Marriage.

[David Floyd]

Anyone who says heaven is for the poor is not a huge advocate of anything like capitalism or liberterianism.

Jesus never said any such thing. He said that heaven is for those who are saved.

It is true that he also said that "It would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle (by which he meant a gate in Jerusalem called the eye of the needle, not an actual eye of a needle) than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." However, this is in the context that God hates pride, and the rich are often proud.

But God certainly doesn't hate rich people, or preclude them from heaven because they are rich.

[GePap]

Yes, it is really hard to get into heaven if you are driven by lust, greed, pride, and averice (why do you need 20 billion as opposed to 100 million, beside your pride? Certainly you do not need more to live well or to make sure your children live well).

As for God hating rich people: well, if you are a Calvinist then God must love rich people, though of course jesus was no calvinist.

And Jesus would certainly not think much of people who spend lost of money on vanity ites knowing their fellow man is starving. You, on the other hand, have little porblem with the rich letting the poor starve, if the rich don;t want to feed the poor.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I always thought Jesus was a socialist. And, of course, I always think socialists are good people. I just never want them to handle my money .

[David Floyd]

Yes, it is really hard to get into heaven if you are driven by lust, greed, pride, and averice (why do you need 20 billion as opposed to 100 million, beside your pride? Certainly you do not need more to live well or to make sure your children live well).

It's hard to get into heaven if you are driven by anything except God.

As for God hating rich people: well, if you are a Calvinist then God must love rich people, though of course jesus was no calvinist.

Actually, God loves everyone.

And Jesus would certainly not think much of people who spend lost of money on vanity ites knowing their fellow man is starving.

I'm sure that Jesus would not. However, Jesus would not be in favor of forcing these people to spend their money on the poor, as opposed to vanity items, which is really the whole point.

You, on the other hand, have little porblem with the rich letting the poor starve, if the rich don;t want to feed the poor.

No, I have a problem with the rich letting the poor starve, but I don't have a problem with letting the rich let the poor starve.

In other words, what the rich SHOULD do and what their rights are/what they CAN do, are two completely different things.

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd
It's hard to get into heaven if you are driven by anything except God.

But riches distract, hence monastic life.

Actually, God loves everyone.

He love all, that does not mean he does not view certain actions a more in line with his teachings.

I'm sure that Jesus would not. However, Jesus would not be in favor of forcing these people to spend their money on the poor, as opposed to vanity items, which is really the whole point.

Jesus said unto Caesar. If Caesar tells you to pay taxes, you should pay them. And go ahead and ley others starve, you will go to hell.

No, I have a problem with the rich letting the poor starve, but I don't have a problem with letting the rich let the poor starve.

In other words, what the rich SHOULD do and what their rights are/what they CAN do, are two completely different things.

Oh, but God gives no rights, Caeser does.

[David Floyd]

But riches distract, hence monastic life.

Poverty is also distracting, if your only concern is finding food for the day.

He love all, that does not mean he does not view certain actions a more in line with his teachings

Clearly.

If Caesar tells you to pay taxes, you should pay them.

As has been pointed out in the past, Jesus was very non-political. He was not interested in political/legal troubles, but rather, in fulfilling his task/mission. He was not in the business of fostering revolution or civil disobedience, but if he was, the Roman Empire in the Israel area would have been a good place to start. Don't infer from the "render unto Caesar" verse that Jesus viewed the Romans as good or responsible or moral governors, and don't infer from that that God thinks an earthly government has the right to do anything and that Christians must obey.

And go ahead and ley others starve, you will go to hell.

No, only non-Christians go to hell.

Oh, but God gives no rights, Caeser does.

Really? Actually, there is a very strong argument for God-given natural rights, revolving around the concept of free will. Further, as I've pointed out before, if God thought that property only existed as a creation of government, and that a government could eliminate property, then why the Biblical admonition against stealing? Stealing implies property, and if God had simply meant that we shouldn't violate laws against stealing, he would not have been specific as to stealing. I can only conclude that the Bible supports the view that property can and does exist, even if a government says it does not.

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Poverty is also distracting, if your only concern is finding food for the day.

Not really: If you are so concerned about food, you will be very unlikely to be commiting any sins at all.

As has been pointed out in the past, Jesus was very non-political. He was not interested in political/legal troubles, but rather, in fulfilling his task/mission. He was not in the business of fostering revolution or civil disobedience, but if he was, the Roman Empire in the Israel area would have been a good place to start. Don't infer from the "render unto Caesar" verse that Jesus viewed the Romans as good or responsible or moral governors, and don't infer from that that God thinks an earthly government has the right to do anything and that Christians must obey.

Jesus message had dsitinct political overtones, otherwise they would not have crucified him as they did.

No, only non-Christians go to hell.

No, bad christians go to hell as well, and the Jews do get in, at least 144,000 of them.

Really? Actually, there is a very strong argument for God-given natural rights, revolving around the concept of free will. Further, as I've pointed out before, if God thought that property only existed as a creation of government, and that a government could eliminate property, then why the Biblical admonition against stealing? Stealing implies property, and if God had simply meant that we shouldn't violate laws against stealing, he would not have been specific as to stealing. I can only conclude that the Bible supports the view that property can and does exist, even if a government says it does not.

Ah, but God does not give the tablets to a bunch of savages. The Jews already had a political leadership and society in place. And it was up to this society to enforce the laws given. As for Free will: free will means the ability ot make choices on your own, but this does not equate to freedom. The Jews were slaves and then had slaves: slaves had free will, and thus the ability to carry out their duties and the commandments. There is no commandment about thou being free, noe even able to, say , chose your political leadership. The Jews lived under kings, not republics. republics were a creation of Pagans.

[David Floyd]

If you are so concerned about food, you will be very unlikely to be commiting any sins at all.

Unless you are stealing food, which is a sin. Further, sins do not have to be actions, they can also be thoughts. And since a single sin is enough to keep you out of heaven, and since every sins, then these poor people are no more saved than rich people are, without Christ

Jesus message had dsitinct political overtones, otherwise they would not have crucified him as they did.

That might have been the perception of the Romans and, more to the point, Jews, but the fact remains that Jesus was not concerned with political or social change (he did not, for example, protest slavery, nor did Paul or anyone else). His mission was to die for man's sins, not to set up moral government.

No, bad christians go to hell as well,

That is extremely incorrect. First of all, I don't know what the phrase "bad Christian" means, but I can assure you that anyone who has been saved is going to heaven. Now, certain Christians might receive more heavenly rewards than others ("store up for yourself treasures in heaven"), but that doesn't mean some Christians go to hell.

and the Jews do get in, at least 144,000 of them.

Nowhere does the Bible say a Jew can't go to heaven. Nowhere does the Bible say a Muslim can't go to heaven. The only requirement for salvation is Jesus.

Ah, but God does not give the tablets to a bunch of savages.

Why are we discussing the Old Testament? It is not really relevant.

Now, for some relevant passages regarding stealing:

Matt 19:18 - "Jesus replied, 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony"

Rom 13:8-9 - "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law (note: this has nothing to do with political law). The commandments, "Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

Eph 4:28 - "He who has been stealing must no longer steal, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need."

Interesting sidenote: While Eph 4:28 encourages us to share with those in need, it is not advocating a law, and further, it is also interesting to note that it is not advocating social welfare programs, but rather charity.

Now, what is interesting is that none of those verses imply that stealing only exists in the context of a government. It does not admonish us to obey the laws of man, it tells us not to steal. If these verses were simply there to encourage us to obey the political laws, including those against theft, they (and various other verses throughout the Bible) would not have singled out theft, or any other criminal act. However, these verses are referring to stealing in the context that stealing is wrong, not that stealing is illegal.

The Jews already had a political leadership and society in place. And it was up to this society to enforce the laws given.

The NT is referring to Gentiles as well as Jews, while the OT was largely just Judaeic law. There's a difference.

As for Free will: free will means the ability ot make choices on your own, but this does not equate to freedom.

If you don't think the Bible and God are in favor of freedom, then you haven't read Galations 5.

The Jews were slaves and then had slaves:

Actually, God prohibited slavery among the Jews in the OT.

There is no commandment about thou being free, noe even able to, say , chose your political leadership. The Jews lived under kings, not republics. republics were a creation of Pagans.

I'm not talking about theory of government, I'm talking about freedom. In fact, in a broader sense, I've stated before that I couldn't care less WHAT kind the government call itself - communist, Nazi, republic, whatever - so long as that government respects my freedom.

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Unless you are stealing food, which is a sin. Further, sins do not have to be actions, they can also be thoughts. And since a single sin is enough to keep you out of heaven, and since every sins, then these poor people are no more saved than rich people are, without Christ

If you run into righteous people, there will be no need to steal as they will offer you what they can. nd if you are so hungry, you won't really be thinking much either. There is a reason monks take vows of poverty.

That might have been the perception of the Romans and, more to the point, Jews, but the fact remains that Jesus was not concerned with political or social change (he did not, for example, protest slavery, nor did Paul or anyone else). His mission was to die for man's sins, not to set up moral government.

And yet the movement and ideas he set up do have political implications in various areas, so even if Jesus was utterly apolitical 9which seems impossible in the Judea of that day), his ideas are still revolutionary, and hence politically dangerous.

That is extremely incorrect. First of all, I don't know what the phrase "bad Christian" means, but I can assure you that anyone who has been saved is going to heaven. Now, certain Christians might receive more heavenly rewards than others ("store up for yourself treasures in heaven"), but that doesn't mean some Christians go to hell.

It all depends on what you call a christian: If you mean that anyone who self-categorizes themselves as a Christian goes to heaven, then that is nonsense. If you mean that the only "true" Christians are those that follow all the teachings and mandates of God, then fine, but you never discover if you are that type of Christian while alive.

Now, what is interesting is that none of those verses imply that stealing only exists in the context of a government. It does not admonish us to obey the laws of man, it tells us not to steal. If these verses were simply there to encourage us to obey the political laws, including those against theft, they (and various other verses throughout the Bible) would not have singled out theft, or any other criminal act. However, these verses are referring to stealing in the context that stealing is wrong, not that stealing is illegal.

Ah, but Taxation is never mentioned either, nor the foundation of the property regime. So Jesus is saying don; steal..fine, but that is not the same as saying "taxes ae theft", not by a long shot. Nor does Jesus ever say who determines what is who's property, now does he?

If you don't think the Bible and God are in favor of freedom, then you haven't read Galations 5.

Enlighten me, becuase I haven't. Does God denounce slavery in principle in that passege?

Actually, God prohibited slavery among the Jews in the OT.

But what about taking non-Jews as slaves? Oh, and it was you saying to keep the OT out. Paul did not mind slavery, as you yourself stated.

I'm not talking about theory of government, I'm talking about freedom. In fact, in a broader sense, I've stated before that I couldn't care less WHAT kind the government call itself - communist, Nazi, republic, whatever - so long as that government respects my freedom.

Ah, but what a government calls itself is not the same as HOW the government works. And how it works does make a huge difference to your freedom., and to what freedoms you may be allowed in the first place.

[David Floyd]

If you run into righteous people, there will be no need to steal as they will offer you what they can. nd if you are so hungry, you won't really be thinking much either. There is a reason monks take vows of poverty.

So your theory is that it is hard for poor people to sin? That's a nice theory, but the Bible says that ALL have sinned, and this includes poor people.

And yet the movement and ideas he set up do have political implications in various areas, so even if Jesus was utterly apolitical 9which seems impossible in the Judea of that day), his ideas are still revolutionary, and hence politically dangerous.

So someone else decided Jesus's teaching were political, that they were dangerous and threatening. That wasn't Jesus' intent, by any means, and he's hardly responsible for what people misread into his teachings.

It all depends on what you call a christian: If you mean that anyone who self-categorizes themselves as a Christian goes to heaven, then that is nonsense. If you mean that the only "true" Christians are those that follow all the teachings and mandates of God, then fine, but you never discover if you are that type of Christian while alive.

Actually, neither person you described is a Christian based upon their description. A Christian is simply one who has accepted Jesus and salvation.

Ah, but Taxation is never mentioned either, nor the foundation of the property regime.

So what? The Bible says that stealing is wrong. Stealing is basically taking someone's property without permission. Since the Biblical prohibition against stealing appeared prior to the "modern property regime", then a concept of property must predate English common law, or whatever you want to use.

Jesus is saying don; steal..fine, but that is not the same as saying "taxes ae theft", not by a long shot.

Sure it is.

Nor does Jesus ever say who determines what is who's property, now does he?

If the concept of stealing predates government - that is, if stealing is wrong outside of government - then the natural right to property must exist, and that belief is founded upon things such as self-ownership. Jesus doesn't have to designate someone to determine what property is, because he already established that property exists regardless of what the government says.

[quote]Enlighten me, becuase I haven't.[/quote[

I don't have my Bible handy right now, but essentially the concept is that man is free, and one should exercise that freedom to behave righteously.

Does God denounce slavery in principle in that passege?

Not in as many words, but I think it's implied.

But what about taking non-Jews as slaves? Oh, and it was you saying to keep the OT out. Paul did not mind slavery, as you yourself stated.

I agree, we should keep the OT out. It isn't relevant for modern Christians as a series of rules to live by.

[quote]

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So your theory is that it is hard for poor people to sin? That's a nice theory, but the Bible says that ALL have sinned, and this includes poor people.

Take it up with a monastic order.

So someone else decided Jesus's teaching were political, that they were dangerous and threatening. That wasn't Jesus' intent, by any means, and he's hardly responsible for what people misread into his teachings.

Misreadings can happen in a number of ways, now can;t they? And sicne he is not here to correct anyone (specially sicne he actually didn't write down anyhting himself, the job being done by others...

Actually, neither person you described is a Christian based upon their description. A Christian is simply one who has accepted Jesus and salvation.

Which happens only after you are dead.

So what? The Bible says that stealing is wrong. Stealing is basically taking someone's property without permission. Since the Biblical prohibition against stealing appeared prior to the "modern property regime", then a concept of property must predate English common law, or whatever you want to use.
Sure it is.
If the concept of stealing predates government - that is, if stealing is wrong outside of government - then the natural right to property must exist, and that belief is founded upon things such as self-ownership. Jesus doesn't have to designate someone to determine what property is, because he already established that property exists regardless of what the government says.

If you claim that the prohibtion of theft predates government, obviously it can not come from the Ten Commandments,since government already existed at that point.(ahem, how was Pharaoe, a puppet? An animal?) I never made the claim that all property laws come from English common law, as Templar did, but English common law came from even earlier legal traditions, like Germanic tribal law, Roman, Law, greek law, so forth and so on. As for Jesus an property: he says "don't steal", he neevr goes into who determines who owns what, which is the point of this discussion. After all, if two people have claim on the same thing, someone has to rule who;s it is and who's it is not. Otherwise the notion of theft makes no sense. As for tax being theft: that is your arguement, one you have to make beyond any biblical discusion.

Not in as many words, but I think it's implied.

Implied? Oh no, sorry, but "implied" means diddly. Different people "imply" different things from the same passage. So what are the exact words?

[David Floyd]

Take it up with a monastic order.

So you deny the Bible says that all have sinned?

Misreadings can happen in a number of ways, now can;t they? And sicne he is not here to correct anyone (specially sicne he actually didn't write down anyhting himself, the job being done by others...

The nature of the debate I was having with Templar included an assumption that the Bible was accurate (the Word of God), hence no appeal to a higher logical authority was needed. I have also admitted somewhere else on this thread that the arguments I am using are only logically consistent if one accepts the Bible as accurate. If you want to throw away that assumption, we have a different debate, but we can do that too.

Which happens only after you are dead.

We can only be saved after death? Where is this coming from?

If you claim that the prohibtion of theft predates government, obviously it can not come from the Ten Commandments,since government already existed at that point.(

Who's arguing the 10 Commandments? We already agreed to throw out the Old Testament. I'm simply referring to Jesus's teaching in the context of having nothing to do with earthly government.

As for Jesus an property: he says "don't steal", he neevr goes into who determines who owns what, which is the point of this discussion.

a)Making the claim that stealing is wrong outside of what the government says goes a long way towards determining who owns what, by introducing morality rather than legality into the picture.

b)This is not the point of the side discussion Templar and I were having. You and Berzerker are having your own debate.

After all, if two people have claim on the same thing, someone has to rule who;s it is and who's it is not.

Certainly, but one of them is right and one of them is wrong regardless of the existence or outcome of arbitration. Laws and arbitrations have their uses, but their uses do not include establishing morality.

So what are the exact words?

Essentially, that man should exercise is freedom in a manner consistent with righteousness.

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd
We can only be saved after death? Where is this coming from?

You might very well think you have accepted Jesus and salvation, but that does not make it true: it is only after death that you can know if you trully did what was necessary, unless some Heavenyl agent comes down to tell you before hand.

I'm simply referring to Jesus's teaching in the context of having nothing to do with earthly government.

But the are not independent of the realm of man. If you say that his teachings were utterly apolitical, then his saying "don't steal" means little. After all, the Romans had laws against theft as well. He might as well be saying :"follow the LAW", which is is anyway.

a)Making the claim that stealing is wrong outside of what the government says goes a long way towards determining who owns what, by introducing morality rather than legality into the picture.

b)This is not the point of the side discussion Templar and I were having. You and Berzerker are having your own debate.

As above, if you assume Jesus's message to be devoid of politics, then by saying "don't steal" he is simply repeating both Jewish and Roman law, both of which ban stealing.

Certainly, but one of them is right and one of them is wrong regardless of the existence or outcome of arbitration. Laws and arbitrations have their uses, but their uses do not include establishing morality.

Actually, that is not a given. What does morality have to do with competing land claims? A judge would examine the law and come out with a judgement most consistent with it. Jesus has a moral code, but a moral code that exists within the previous frameworks of the law (certainly Jewish law, and perhaps Roman), if one accepts his message to be utterly non-revolutionary politically.

Essentially, that man should exercise is freedom in a manner consistent with righteousness.

And what decides righteousness? as always, it comes down to a question of where do you come to assume there are absolutes out there of righteouness.

[Drake Tungsten]

What the hell are you guys talking about? Talk about a threadjack.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What the hell are you guys talking about? Talk about a threadjack.

The main discussion died long ago: It has become another liberterian thread thing.