Do you think the petition on Rebel Media to BRING BACK HARPER has merit?

[Right To Left]

8 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I served a few tours in the former Yugoslavia, and i think it is a little bit more complicated than you describe , sounds like you got a little Serb in you... I think it was the Serbs that started ethic cleansing, by attacking a civilian town and killing everyone except the oldest female, they left her alive to tell everyone what happened... all sides were guilty of mass killing of women children, old men...it was the wild west for a while not only with organized armies running killing but criminals, gangs, any one with an axe to grind...

NO, and I didn't know anything or really want to know anything about Yugoslavia when I was young, but had no option to completely avoid it either...as our new house in 1970, just happened to be stuck between a Serbian house on one side/and Croatians on the other side of us....something our real estate broker didn't tell my mother or father about. And since it seemed that they were speaking the same language, we thought they were all the same.

Relations between our 'neighbors' were civil for the most part and not too outrageous, except on occasion....no doubt when the men of the house were out on their back porches and yards and just decided to argue with each other in Serbo-Croatian about whatever was going on in the old country and who was at fault for something that happened a hundred years ago from what we could gather. 

According to my mother, things didn't start going off the deep end until that Yugoslav War started in the early 90's. But everyone was getting old by that time, the Serbians had moved away so the other guys had no one to argue with. I guess we had all been watching these amateur comedians arguing and shaking their hands and fists at each other for so long, we thought that's just how crazy Slavic types act, and were surprised when the Civil War broke out and got really ugly with the breakup of Bosnia, and the ethnic cleansing of Croatia's Krajina Region soon after. 

Quote

 

The UN created the circumstances which allowed them meaning ( Serbs, Croats, Muslims,) that allowed them to slaughter anyone in wholesale fashion, including the use of concentration camps.... like the world did not get enough of that in WWII.

Our orders from the UN was to observe and record any war crimes, and not to blame everything on the UN the Government of Canada has it's share of the blame as well, Canada sent her soldiers over there to stop the violence, only to find out we could not do that, we could observe and report, even if it meant saving a life... Politics  vs human lives and humans always loss... all that training we received to close with and destroy the enemy and we could not use any of it to help stop the fighting or save a life, one exception Medak pocket,  Once NATO took over and we could use force to stop the killing most if not all the fighting stopped. And when the Serbs found a new enemy in Kosovo, it took NATO fighter planes to bomb the shit out of them to make them stop. of all the war crimes we recorded not one of them stood trail for their actions. and off all the things i have seen in WAR, nothing compares to the evil i witnessed in Bosnia, that includes 3 tours of Afghanistan. 

Other than being full of liberals, Ontario has as much to offer than any other province, it is the industry heartland of Canada, until we sent most of everything to china,  it still full of resources... This country is divided in so many ways and need s a good leader to bring us all together, and Justin has proven already he is not the guy, i mean we can't do worse, but it is time to move on.

 

Yes, I can agree that on the ground, parachuting a bunch of foreign peacekeepers in to conflict zones, whether in Eastern Europe, Africa or the Middle East, is somewhere between pointless and worse.  But, my own learning from others on the subject delves in to some questions about outside actors and malevolent intentions. 

For instance, how was it so much easier to maintain the Slavic union after WWI and right through 1948, when all parties apparently agreed to break with Stalin and the Soviet Union over how independent communist nations could be and act in global affairs. 

For about another 40 years, until the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Yugoslav Federation was holding together, but was finally undone by rising debt levels to foreign creditors and arguments about who should and should not have to pay the costs. 

But, a lot of observers after the fall point to the legacy of everyone's favorite pope (especially rightwing non-Catholics) John Paul II, and his role as a lobbyist, being the first to recognize an independent Croatia in 1991, and pushing the US, England and other European nations to do likewise. 

If JPII had been an actually peacemaker as claimed/ and not a deceitful, devisive old bastard...only concerned with adding another Catholic nation to the books, things may have turned out differently! But, it was easy to see that the NATO alliance had a vested interest in keeping Yugoslavia together in 1948 (even though it was a non-aligned communist nation) but not 40 years later! 

After the breakup of other nations over the past 30 or 40 years, a cynic on geopolitics might conclude that US intentions are to make foreign nations as small as possible, so that they are poorer in comparison and less able to speak with one voice against international policies they don't agree with.  The recent histories of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia will certainly show this trend.

[Right To Left]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

You must be following something, i mean of all the things you could have said about the west, you decided that greedy rednecks is what described them best. The same place that provided you work in the oil industry....that put food on your table, and no doubt much more. Real oil is still flowing out of the western provinces, Tar sands get all the attention, but there is enough real oil to keep all of Canada supplied for many future generations.

I'm referring mostly to consumers of crap like Rebel Media here. But it's not lost on most people who moved out west in the 70's or 80's for even a short time, that the place seems more like a cold Texas than part of Canada. 

I know we still have some oil flowing. But as it started running out, Alberta was out to encourage as much tarsands expansion as possible; even though we don't need it for Canadian needs, and even back in the 80's, before atmospheric CO2 levels started rising fast and making Global Warming a subject of conversation, it was still understood by the mostly Dene and Cree tribes living north of Athabasca, that they would receive the environmental damages to land and waterways from the at the time - questionable operations of boiling thousands of gallons of water to pump into the shale bitumen layers to drive out as much bitumen slurry as possible. Just like 'fugitive' methane from fracking shale formations to recover natural gas, a lot or most of the gas goes up in the atmosphere or into the groundwater and pollutes drinking supplies. Same thing happens with tarsands fracking. But most of the runoffs go north, rather than south, where large urban populations would raise holy hell if their water was being polluted by toxic chemicals and heavy metals from tarsands runoffs. In the short term, environmental damage is typically offloaded onto the poorest and less dense communities that have less ability to resist "PROGRESS". 

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Right To Left said:

Right!! Our system is set up to privilege those who have the greatest wealth, whether inherited or earned by way of the more generous taxation rules accorded to investment income than earned income (The Job Creators....blah blah blah) above those with their noses to the grindstone, slaving away 8 to 10 hours a day doing jobs they endure or totally hate, for 30 or 40 years until ..... hopefully these days, they can afford to retire. And retire before they are broken down and used up wrecks waiting for the Grim Reaper to show up and take them off to the morgue! 

It's the rent seekers, the rentier class who feel a sense of entitlement to other people's property, because they either own it or have a lien on it.

After decades of being marinated in anti-communist bullshit in the west, it wasn't until a few started arriving from former communist countries on our shores, that we discovered that the collapse was caused internally mostly because of opportunistic subversives in the communist parties, who used the party to advance their own positions and be ready to take advantage once the leaders started 'privatizing' everything in sight. Those who bought up state industries and production facilities were the first generation of ruthless oligarchs, who hired blackmarket traders and gangsters to enforce their competitive advantages. After some of the bastards started dying off or imprisoned by those who had a leg up on them and took institutional power, a calmer, more structured form of capitalism..similar to the west, took over, but maintained the same mafia system of kicking up most of the profits to the top bosses that goes on in western capitalism at an ever-increasing frenzied pace today! 

For those who make up the working classes anywhere behind the former Iron Curtain, only those with money and power have freedom today. And those who complain or try to push back against the bosses get shot as traitors and dissidents, like the former union workers in Nazified Ukraine today, that will remain the Haiti of Europe -- an economic basket case that will remain the poorest nation in Europe for a very long time....essentially when the other Euros have declined to their level of depravity and deprivation. 

As for your Bible bullshit, if you actually read most of the Bible, you would find socialist principles like sharing the wealth equally to be rigidly enforced in Acts Ch. 5, and the rich subject to suspicion and condemnation throughout the Old Testament books. 

What America started doing a hundred years ago...and where you get your religious principles from, is an upside down version of Christianity that worships the rich and scorns the poor / exactly the opposite of what all of the Psalms and Proverbs and New Testament lessons tell their followers to do! 

It will be you and your kind in the Lake of Fire mentioned in Revelation... not the downtrodden who have suffered in this world! 

But, even those of us who don't follow this line of mythology find value in the principles of sharing and giving aid to the poor/and giving the rich a good kick in the ass whenever possible!

Quote:  All Forms of Socialism Are Theft

 Central to the moral argument against socialism and quasi-socialism is the 8th commandment: 

You shall not steal (Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 5:19).

This command teaches the concept of private property and forbids the taking of property from an innocent person. God added to this condemnation of socialism by prohibiting envy in the 10th commandment:

You shall not covet (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21).  

God is a capitalist, which we know because God endorses private property. This is inferred from the 8th commandment. The prohibition of theft assumes that people own things. Of course, everything in this world belongs to God. Yet He has delegated control and responsibility of things to individuals. We call this private property rights.

Everyone understands this concept. No one likes others stealing their belongings, and they therefore do things to prevent theft, such as lock their door at night. It is also the case that every civilized society prohibits theft. People have property rights, and the government should protect such rights.

Yet this all breaks down for many people when the government gets involved. It is wrong for Bob to take a quarter of your income. But if Bob and his friends lobby the government, politicians pass legislation, and the government gives one quarter of your money to Bob, then all is right.

This is exactly how the typical Western welfare state works. The government enacts a variety of taxes (sales tax, income tax, FICA, tariffs, etc.) and then redistributes the money to a variety of classes (the poor, students, elderly, disabled, politically well-connected, etc.). But this is not called “theft” because, well, the government says so. This situation exposes one of the chief flaws of democracy, a system where two wolves and a lamb vote on what to eat for dinner.

Thus, modern societies have made an exception to the 8th commandment—“You shall not steal, except by majority vote.” One person cannot take your stuff, but if enough people vote to take your stuff, then it is “legal.” And if it is legal, then it is morally acceptable.

Christians are enabling this problem by limiting the 8th commandment to individuals instead of societies. However, the 8th commandment provides no such limitation. Groups are made up of individuals, and stealing is still stealing when done by a group.

Is Taxation Ever Allowed?

Some will respond, “Following this logic, are not all taxes and government programs theft?” One possible response is yes, which has some appeal due to its consistency (the view of anarcho-capitalism). However, a more biblical response is that some taxes are legitimate because some government functions are legitimate. Thus, we need to understand the proper role of civil government.

It is important to understand that God designed government to enforce what are known as “negative rights.” You have a right to not be killed or stolen from. Hence the “negative.” But you do not have a right to food or shelter or anything else that belongs to someone else. You have to work for these things and buy these things through voluntary exchange. Thus, it is warped when it is said that humans have a “right” to things like healthcare or education.

The only “positive rights” are those which are owed you out of a contract (such as the benefits of an insurance policy if certain conditions are met). And government does have an obligation to enforce such contracts. This is the only role of government in regard to positive rights. The government does not owe you any good or service, contrary to what socialists like to claim.

God’s institution of civil government has a purpose, and that purpose is to protect property rights. In other words, God has designed the state to enforce the 8th commandment (as well as the 6th, 7th, and other commandments). It is all great when nobody steals. But people are sinful and steal/murder/destroy, and that is where government comes in. Of course, we have a problem when government is the one doing the stealing.

If government is to protect property rights, then government is going to need enforcers of the law. Thus, it is perfectly legitimate for government to have police, judges, a court system, governors, and a military. Taxes that fund such things are taxes that uphold property rights. These taxes go to benefit all of society and in no way “redistribute wealth.” These are legitimate taxes and are not prohibited by Scripture.  

These are the sort of taxes Paul has in mind in Romans 13:1-7 when he speaks of the governing authorities that God instituted to “punish evil” and “reward the good.” Paul ties taxes here to a civil government that punishes crime. He says nothing about the morality of taxes at a high rate as part of a governmental redistributory scheme.

Some cite Jesus’ words to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” as an all-out endorsement of government taxation (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25). However, that is not what these words teach. The Jewish leaders were seeking to trap Jesus among the Romans (who required the tax) and the Jews (who opposed Romans taxation). Jesus outsmarted His opponents by making reference to Caesar’s picture on the coins—“Whose likeness and inscription is this?” (Matthew 22:20). The answer was “Caesar’s.” So Jesus responded, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).  

This was not a wholesale endorsement of Roman government, nor was this a discourse on the morality of taxation. Rather, Jesus actually endorsed property rights by distinguishing between that which belongs to Caesar and that which does not. Contrary to popular claims, Jesus was not a socialist. 

Just Taxation

It should also be noted that there are biblical limits on taxation. When the Israelites demanded a king in 1 Samuel 8, God warned them that there would be a tyrannical king who would tax their income at 10% (1 Samuel 8:14, 17). The king would set himself up as God with this “tithe” to his kingdom, which was to make the point that a 10% tax was oppressive. Of course, we have taxes far exceeding this today. How we long for such limited oppression!

There are also general principles for taxation that are not as explicit but should guide our thinking. First, taxation is best done at the local jurisdiction so as to provide accountability to the most proximate constituents. This means the federal income tax is a bad idea. State taxation would be far better in this regard, and county and city taxes would be better than state taxes.

Second, a flat income tax would be preferable to a progressive income tax (meaning the tax rate increases for higher incomes). However, a sales tax would be preferable to a flat income tax. Incomes taxes are difficult to restrain, and voters are tempted to vote to tax the rich at a higher rate. Under a sales tax, everyone pays the same rate, and the more you buy the more you pay in taxes. Income tax punishes making money, which means it hinders saving and investment. "

- knowingscripture.com

[CITIZEN_2015]

On 3/25/2021 at 4:07 PM, Army Guy said:

Just asking why we are setting up these standards for the lack of a better word, when we Canadians can not live up to them. There is currently investigation's ongoing in DND, RCMP, and other federal government departments along with provincial departments such as policing fire departments,  this kind of behavior is not taught in training or for that matter at any time... these behaviors are coming from Canadians, thats where they get their manpower from...And well Justin has already called us all racists so that covers everything else. I think before we start screening people out for bad behaviors we should clean up our own house first. 

Other than that i agree 100 % that we should be more selective in choosing the people we accept into the country, they should be properly vetted, with an in depth identity and criminal check.  

Yes I agree that we should clean up our own house first but for sure we should not make our house even dirtier by bringing dirt from outside to compound the problem.  Bringing over those who have no respect for women or other religions or don't believe in the equality of women and races or human rights only worsens our society. As you said we have enough dirt here already.

Edited March 27, 2021 by CITIZEN_2015

[Army Guy]

15 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Yes I agree that we should clean up our own house first but for sure we should not make our house even dirtier by bringing dirt from outside to compound the problem.  Bringing over those who have no respect for women or other religions or don't believe in the equality of women and races or human rights only worsens our society. As you said we have enough dirt here already.

I disagree one can not preach one thing and practice another, you want immigrants that meet your standard, but we as Canadians for the most part can not meet our own standards... your suggestion is a racist policy period... you can have standards as high as you want as long as they are for everyone , and that don't discriminate what is clearly written in our constitution. I thought you were a liberal.

That being said i like you believe certain cultures do not mix well with ours, but you can't paint everyone with the same brush, not all Muslims share the same beliefs such as women are property, treated poorly etc ...

[Right To Left]

On 3/26/2021 at 6:56 PM, blackbird said:

Quote:  All Forms of Socialism Are Theft

 

QUOTE From Whom??

It's just a bullshit statement of yours presented as fact, and used to frame your manipulation of bible quotes....which would be called blasphemy in some circles!

Quote

 

 Central to the moral argument against socialism and quasi-socialism is the 8th commandment: 

You shall not steal (Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 5:19).

This command teaches the concept of private property and forbids the taking of property from an innocent person. God added to this condemnation of socialism by prohibiting envy in the 10th commandment:

You shall not covet (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21).  

God is a capitalist, which we know because God endorses private property. This is inferred from the 8th commandment. The prohibition of theft assumes that people own things. Of course, everything in this world belongs to God. Yet He has delegated control and responsibility of things to individuals. We call this private property rights.

 

You have to reach back to the worst of the worst of the old testament, but you still can't cite a verse for your claim that "God is a capitalist." 

I didn't know God needed money......wait a minute....change that! His emissaries on earth sure demand enough money on his behalf!

The best example of biblical communism is found in the book of Acts, starting in Ch. 4 continuing in Ch. 5:

32 Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. 33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold 35 and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. 36 Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, 37 sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.

5 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” 5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.

7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you[a] sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” 9 But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.

Now, everyone blathering on about socialism doesn't work, would sure hate living in that early Christian community in Jerusalem, where the holy spirit acts as the all-knowing hit squad to catch any new converts who wanted to keep just a small portion of their wealth, like Ananias and Sapphira. 

 

[CITIZEN_2015]

18 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I disagree one can not preach one thing and practice another, you want immigrants that meet your standard, but we as Canadians for the most part can not meet our own standards... your suggestion is a racist policy period... you can have standards as high as you want as long as they are for everyone , and that don't discriminate what is clearly written in our constitution. I thought you were a liberal.

That being said i like you believe certain cultures do not mix well with ours, but you can't paint everyone with the same brush, not all Muslims share the same beliefs such as women are property, treated poorly etc ...

I certainly don't like or support the internal dirt and I believe there should be stronger laws to protect women and minorities but what I said was that just because we have these issues here already doesn't justify bringing in even more and make the problem worse.

I never said I am liberal. Other posters have labeled me as liberal. As I have mentioned I am against liberal government's immigration policy of take everyone. I have said again and again that immigration numbers must be cut in half and Canada should be much more selective to bring in those with compatible cultures adopted by most Canadians which is respect for women and other religions and believing in equality and human rights. This is not racism but maybe nationalism a bit as I did not say to exclude colored people or exclude regions. I am surprised you accused me of racism!!!!!!!

[blackbird]

10 hours ago, Right To Left said:

QUOTE From Whom??

It's just a bullshit statement of yours presented as fact, and used to frame your manipulation of bible quotes....which would be called blasphemy in some circles!

You have to reach back to the worst of the worst of the old testament, but you still can't cite a verse for your claim that "God is a capitalist." 

I didn't know God needed money......wait a minute....change that! His emissaries on earth sure demand enough money on his behalf!

The best example of biblical communism is found in the book of Acts, starting in Ch. 4 continuing in Ch. 5:

32 Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. 33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold 35 and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. 36 Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, 37 sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.

5 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” 5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.

7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you[a] sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” 9 But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.

Now, everyone blathering on about socialism doesn't work, would sure hate living in that early Christian community in Jerusalem, where the holy spirit acts as the all-knowing hit squad to catch any new converts who wanted to keep just a small portion of their wealth, like Ananias and Sapphira. 

 

It is easily proven Socialism and Communism are contrary to the Bible, God's written revelation to mankind.

"

Does the Book of Acts teach Socialism?

Category: Apologetics, Culture Wars/Popular Culture JULY 13, 2017  1,099  3

There seems to be a belief going around among non-Christians (and even some Christians) that the book of Acts teaches that the early Church promoted a form of socialism or communism. Some use this information to teach that big government is a good or holy thing. Others will use it to convince others that Jesus and his followers were evil. Does the book of Acts teach socialism or communism? Let’s take a look.

There are two passages in question when discussing this topic. The first is Acts 2:42-47. These verses say:

“They [the early Christians] devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.” (emphasis mine)

The second passage can be found in Acts 5:1-11. In these verses, we are told about a believer named Ananias and his wife, Sapphira. They sold a piece of property and, instead of giving all of the profit to the Church; they kept some of it for themselves. Ananias then brought the rest of the money to the apostles. However, Peter told Ananias that Satan had filled his heart so that he lied to Holy Spirit and kept some of the money for himself. After saying this, Peter continued:

“Didn’t it [the property] belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Ananias died immediately after hearing these words. About three hours later, his wife Sapphira came in to see Peter. Peter asked her if the money presented to the apostles was the exact amount that the land sold for. She said yes, and Peter asked her “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord?” She then immediately died.

This episode is thought by some to be proof that the early Church was practicing some form of socialism/communism. The believers “had everything in common.” They sold everything that they owned and gave it to others. This is clearly socialism according to some. Also, God killed Ananias and Sapphira because they dared to keep some of the money and make a profit. They are clearly evil capitalists!

Are these passages teaching socialism or communism?

The answer to this question is a big no(!) if one takes the time to study the verses in question. First, it needs to be pointed out the book of Acts portrays the early Christians as selling their property and giving to others freely. They are not being forced to give away their property to others by a central authority.

Second, socialism and communism directly contradict key teachings of Christianity in the form of the Ten Commandments. The eighth and tenth commandments teach not to steal and covet the possessions of others. These economic systems give the government authority to take from others forcibly thus breaking these commandments. The early Church community was selling their property and giving to others out of the goodness of their hearts. The Gospel frees us from our selfishness so that we will willingly help others and even put ourselves below the needs of others (Philippians 2:3-4).

Third, the book of Acts teaches that Christians continued to own private property (Acts 21:8), thus showing that the Church never commanded that they had to sell their possessions. It was voluntary. This model that the Jerusalem church is practicing during this time is never forced upon all Christians by an authoritarian church leadership.

Fourth, it must also be noticed that the community of believers gave to those who had need. They didn’t just sell everything and start randomly giving things out to people.

Fifth, concerning the issue with Ananias and Sapphira, it is also clear that they were not killed by God because they kept some of the money. Peter says that they are in trouble because they lied to God. They apparently told Peter that the money they were giving to the Church was all the money they had made from the selling of their property. Judging from the way Sapphira spoke it seems obvious that she and her husband had planned the lie.

Sixth, Marxism is based upon an atheistic view of the world, (thus breaking the first two commandments).[1]  It is also based upon class warfare which is never taught in Scripture. The Gospel is the key to removing different classes in society. How can the rich look down on the poor if they love their neighbor as themselves or follow the golden rule? They can’t. A society that truly follows the Gospel of Jesus Christ will resemble a utopia much more than a communist state.  Unquote - christianworldviewpress.com

Socialism or Communism also requires that the state crush or deny individual human rights of the people.  If you want to give up your human rights, why are you living in a western democracy?  Why not move over to a Communist country where there are no human rights and no enshrined right to private property?

Edited March 28, 2021 by blackbird

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I certainly don't like or support the internal dirt and I believe there should be stronger laws to protect women and minorities but what I said was that just because we have these issues here already doesn't justify bringing in even more and make the problem worse.

I never said I am liberal. Other posters have labeled me as liberal. As I have mentioned I am against liberal government's immigration policy of take everyone. I have said again and again that immigration numbers must be cut in half and Canada should be much more selective to bring in those with compatible cultures adopted by most Canadians which is respect for women and other religions and believing in equality and human rights. This is not racism but maybe nationalism a bit as I did not say to exclude colored people or exclude regions. I am surprised you accused me of racism!!!!!!!

I did not accuse you of racism, i said your suggestion is a racist policy, one that would exclude an entire race or religious sect for no other reason than they are as guilty as we are. And as i explained not all Muslims disrespect women, just like not all Canadians are guilty of it either.

As for the liberal accusation , my bad it is just your posts have a left leaning to them. be it liberal , NDP, or green. 

Edited March 28, 2021 by Army Guy

[CITIZEN_2015]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I did not accuse you of racism, i said your suggestion is a racist policy, one that would exclude an entire race or religious sect for no other reason than they are as guilty as we are. And as i explained not all Muslims disrespect women, just like not all Canadians are guilty of it either.

As for the liberal accusation , my bad it is just your posts have a left leaning to them. be it liberal , NDP, or green. 

That is why in all my posts related to immigration I clearly say  again and again that we have to adopt selectivity as the main criteria.  I have been against regional ban very strongly in all my posts. First off there are many in so called Muslim countries who are no longer Muslims or practicing Muslims like Iran at the top of the list but other countries too and second as you said there maybe some Muslims who still may believe in equality and respect for women though in my view their percentage is very low. but that is just my opinion.

Yes I am center tight in my beliefs definitely not left. If you read all of my posts (not just those supporting Trudeau and liberal government) my posts sometimes have tendency to be very right wing sometimes, like strong support for capital punishment and restrictions on immigration and selectivity of immigrants.

[Right To Left]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

It is easily proven Socialism and Communism are contrary to the Bible, God's written revelation to mankind.

"

Does the Book of Acts teach Socialism?

Category: Apologetics, Culture Wars/Popular Culture JULY 13, 2017  1,099  3

There seems to be a belief going around among non-Christians (and even some Christians) that the book of Acts teaches that the early Church promoted a form of socialism or communism. Some use this information to teach that big government is a good or holy thing. Others will use it to convince others that Jesus and his followers were evil. Does the book of Acts teach socialism or communism? Let’s take a look.

There are two passages in question when discussing this topic. The first is Acts 2:42-47. These verses say:

“They [the early Christians] devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.” (emphasis mine)

The second passage can be found in Acts 5:1-11. In these verses, we are told about a believer named Ananias and his wife, Sapphira. They sold a piece of property and, instead of giving all of the profit to the Church; they kept some of it for themselves. Ananias then brought the rest of the money to the apostles. However, Peter told Ananias that Satan had filled his heart so that he lied to Holy Spirit and kept some of the money for himself. After saying this, Peter continued:

“Didn’t it [the property] belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Ananias died immediately after hearing these words. About three hours later, his wife Sapphira came in to see Peter. Peter asked her if the money presented to the apostles was the exact amount that the land sold for. She said yes, and Peter asked her “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord?” She then immediately died.

This episode is thought by some to be proof that the early Church was practicing some form of socialism/communism. The believers “had everything in common.” They sold everything that they owned and gave it to others. This is clearly socialism according to some. Also, God killed Ananias and Sapphira because they dared to keep some of the money and make a profit. They are clearly evil capitalists!

Are these passages teaching socialism or communism?

The answer to this question is a big no(!) if one takes the time to study the verses in question. First, it needs to be pointed out the book of Acts portrays the early Christians as selling their property and giving to others freely. They are not being forced to give away their property to others by a central authority.

Second, socialism and communism directly contradict key teachings of Christianity in the form of the Ten Commandments. The eighth and tenth commandments teach not to steal and covet the possessions of others. These economic systems give the government authority to take from others forcibly thus breaking these commandments. The early Church community was selling their property and giving to others out of the goodness of their hearts. The Gospel frees us from our selfishness so that we will willingly help others and even put ourselves below the needs of others (Philippians 2:3-4).

Third, the book of Acts teaches that Christians continued to own private property (Acts 21:8), thus showing that the Church never commanded that they had to sell their possessions. It was voluntary. This model that the Jerusalem church is practicing during this time is never forced upon all Christians by an authoritarian church leadership.

Fourth, it must also be noticed that the community of believers gave to those who had need. They didn’t just sell everything and start randomly giving things out to people.

Fifth, concerning the issue with Ananias and Sapphira, it is also clear that they were not killed by God because they kept some of the money. Peter says that they are in trouble because they lied to God. They apparently told Peter that the money they were giving to the Church was all the money they had made from the selling of their property. Judging from the way Sapphira spoke it seems obvious that she and her husband had planned the lie.

Sixth, Marxism is based upon an atheistic view of the world, (thus breaking the first two commandments).[1]  It is also based upon class warfare which is never taught in Scripture. The Gospel is the key to removing different classes in society. How can the rich look down on the poor if they love their neighbor as themselves or follow the golden rule? They can’t. A society that truly follows the Gospel of Jesus Christ will resemble a utopia much more than a communist state.  Unquote - christianworldviewpress.com

Socialism or Communism also requires that the state crush or deny individual human rights of the people.  If you want to give up your human rights, why are you living in a western democracy?  Why not move over to a Communist country where there are no human rights and no enshrined right to private property?

I'm pretty sure I've had this apologetic excuse thrown at me before a number of times when I used to engage with the God vs. atheism debates.

The shallow contention that they red-underlined  FREELY gave their possessions to the big pot is laughable, because if everyone else is doing it, you're going to feel a strong level of coercion to do likewise....especially when that holy spirit hitman is invisibly circling above everyone with his sword!  Otherwise why would Ananias try to tempt fate and secretly hold back? (He didn't realize Mr. Holy Spirit was watching everything he was doing!) 

The socialism of that first Christian community (which has served as the model for so many Christian fundamentalist communes for centuries) is more fully explained in Acts ch. 4, and I guess that's why all of the capitalist christian apologetics that need to explain away these chapters just start at ch 5. 

[Shady]

[Army Guy]

On 3/26/2021 at 6:04 PM, Right To Left said:

 

After the breakup of other nations over the past 30 or 40 years, a cynic on geopolitics might conclude that US intentions are to make foreign nations as small as possible, so that they are poorer in comparison and less able to speak with one voice against international policies they don't agree with.  The recent histories of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia will certainly show this trend.

Not very often the splitting up of a nation ends well, the majority of them end in violence, like the examples you have provided.. but their are some ex Warsaw pact countries that have had much better results look at Poland, Latvia, and Ukraine has some what stabilized.. with others also very interested in joining NATO...so there has been some successes as well. Today Bosnia is run by the mafia , that is not any better than the communist... 

[Right To Left]

20 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Not very often the splitting up of a nation ends well, the majority of them end in violence, like the examples you have provided.. but their are some ex Warsaw pact countries that have had much better results look at Poland, Latvia, and Ukraine has some what stabilized.. with others also very interested in joining NATO...so there has been some successes as well. Today Bosnia is run by the mafia , that is not any better than the communist... 

Ukraine today, yes that Ukraine given $billions in new weapons to fight an aggressive shooting war to either take back its rebellious eastern provinces or drive the Russian and Russian-speaking Ukrainians across the border into Russia and stake new claims (ethnic cleansing by any other name) also happens to be the poorest nation in Europe! 

So, those of us who don't speak either Russian or the Ukraine dialect have only paid attention to the breakup because of its potential to ignite the long feared full scale war between the US and Russia, which judging from the stupid, parroted official propaganda at New York Times et al. (top Pentagon sources tell us etc.) are trying to build the hysterical media campaign needed for the next big war! All of these bullshit stories coming at us this weekend about "Russian tanks and Russian troop movements along the border" miss the part that they haven't crossed any borders into Ukrainian territory. Though Russian officials have made it clear that the increased shelling of Donbass territories will bring a Russian response if the eastern militias are unable to answer back and defend themselves from these attacks.

Latvia? Poland? I know one thing about Poland.... like most of eastern Europe, young people have to move west to find work, and their remittances support their parents and keep local economies functioning. Also, Poland is ruinously in debt to foreign creditors. Though that may not matter for much longer as the US Federal Government has just cleared the bar at $28 Trillion national debt! How high can it go? We may find out before Joe gets hauled out of the White House and off to the nursing home!

Edited April 5, 2021 by Right To Left