At 03:33 PM 6/2/2006, Robert Schneider wrote:
>Janice,
>....As for Marx, I don't agree with his view of human nature, but
>much of what he writes about the nature of capitalism is dead right.
>And in his view of private property, he was very much in the
>tradition of his Hebrew forebears (read the prophets). He was also
>very much in the tradition of those same fathers of the church; they
>railed against private property with a passion Marx might well have
>applauded. And if you wish to get a good sense of the primative
>communism of the early Church, read Acts 2:44-45; 4:14-15. Marx
>summed up this spirit and practice perfectly in his summation of
>communism: "From each according to his ability to each according to his need."
>
>Bob
@ Like Proudhon , the French socialist, you draw a different
conclusion from Scripture than the Framers of our Constitution did.
They knew that the sort of socialism that conforms to the biblical
worldview is the form that is commonly practiced on a small scale
within families, within churches, and other organizations. It is
always going to be a voluntary sharing of resources.
The Bible teaches that the church and the family should care for the
poor rather than the state.
8th Commandment: You shall not steal. This is a guarantee of private property.
10th Commandment: You shall not covet. Again, a guarantee of private property.
Acts 5: Barnabas sellls a piece of property and brought the money to
the Apostles.
Ananias and Saphira decided to do the same - except they sold a
property - kept some of the money back - and lied about how much they
had been paid.
Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the
Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it
remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in
your own power?' "
There you go! An apostolic confirmation of the right of private
property. Not only the means of production, but also the results of
that production were in Ananias' and Saphira's power, not in the
power or hands of the state or the church.
Proudhon , the French socialist said, "Property is theft."
But the commandment forbidding theft teaches the right of private
property and is in complete contradiction to socialist concepts.
*
A review of Bruce Malina and Jerome Neyrey's book, Portraits of Paul:
An Archaeology of Ancient Personality
Highly recommended by J. P. Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/books/porpaulrvw.html
|http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0664256813/ref=ase_tektonministries/104-2968028-6706341?s=books&v=glance&n=283155&tagActionCode=tektonministries
....On this site we regularly recommend books that provide a window
into the thought-world of the Bible, which help in an apologetic
context to understand why critics so often go wrong in their
arguments. Portraits of Paul (despite the main title) isn't so much
about Paul, but does use Paul as an example, to explain how the
ancients thought compared to us today. Hmm, did I say ancients?
Actually we're still the odd ones out. Even in modern times most of
the world still thinks as the people in the Bible did.
And how did they think differently? The key word is "collectivism".
Not an economic theory, but a way of looking at the world and at other people.
Dissing the "easy ethnocentrism" of certain scholars (which is also
shared by many Bible critics) who try to analyze Bible characters in
terms of modern psychology, Malina and Neyrey lay out what it is that
ancient people thought was most important, and show how Paul (and by
extension other people in the Bible) fit into this context.
Ancient people related to each other "in terms of their group
embeddedness and resultant social connections, their standing in the
network of relationships, and their prestige deriving from these
connections." [61]
Where you came from was important and defined what sort of person you
were (viz. the Pastoral comment about Cretans). What was done for the
group was paramount; what was done for the individual was a matter of
the least importance; individualism was deviance, because it impaired
the group's ability to survive.
(This is why a single death of one of our soldiers seems so
meaningful to us, yet other cultures can seemingly "throw away" lives
by the score without experiencing dissonance. It is also why
something like the destruction of the Canaanites could be done without guilt.)
Control over behavior was exerted by the group, not by individualized
norms. You made defenses of the truth in certain ways we would find strange.
How a person looked determined what sort of person they were. Concern
for public awards of respect or honor was a constant (not money!).
Skeptics who smugly think their way is better need to be informed
that even today 70 percent of the world thinks in this collectivist
fashion. We are the oddballs and we need to respect that fact in our
dealings with others -- and in our dealings with the Bible.
I think one sentence sums it up well from this work: "No one in a
group-oriented context would understand something as culturally
nonsensical as 'Let your conscience be your guide.'" [187] Now that
is indeed something the critics I know could relate to!
*
Norman Rockwell, the talented American artist, painted four pictures
in 1943 titled Freedom From Fear, Freedom From Want, Freedom of
Speech, and Freedom of Worship.
The painting Freedom of Worship contained the logo "EACH ACCORDING TO
THE DICTATES OF HIS OWN CONSCIENCE. The phrase "according to the
dictates of his own concience" has a colorful history itself (see,
eg. http://www2.pitnet.net/primarysources/bayle.html), but Rockwell
juxtiposed it into public consciousness against the thrust of
non-American social propaganda during the second world war.
Excerpts From Pacem In Terris: Peace on Earth
Encyclical of Pope John XXIII, On Establishing Universal Peace In
Truth, Justice, Charity, And Liberty, April 11, 1963
"Man's personal dignity requires besides that he enjoy freedom and be
able to make up his own mind when he acts.
In his association with his fellows, therefore, there is every reason
why his recognition of rights, observance of duties, and many-sided
collaboration with other men, should be primarily a matter of his own
personal decision.
Each man should act on his own initiative, conviction, and sense of
responsibility, not under the constant pressure of external coercion
or enticement.
There is nothing human about a society that is welded together by force.
Far from encouraging, as it should, the attainment of man's progress
and perfection, it is merely an obstacle to his freedom."
"Hence, a regime which governs solely or mainly by means of threats
and intimidation or promises of reward, provides men with no
effective incentive to work for the common good.
And even if it did, it would certainly be offensive to the dignity of
free and rational human beings."
"Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral
order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in
conscience, since 'it is right to obey God rather than men.'"
*
America's Founding Principles
"...dedicated to teaching how history, law, logic, and mathematics
prove that the ideas that create America's freedom and prosperity -
America's Founding Principles - are God's moral rules found in
Judeo-Christian Scripture. A big job, to be sure, but to help you
quickly see where we are coming from, we summarize these ideas in the
blue boxes below. The white boxes give you examples of where these
ideas appear in our founding documents, the writings of the Founding
Fathers, and the scholarly writings that influenced our founding. We
link you to resources where you can learn more, and invite you to
explore our site, especially our Freedom 101 and Project Mainspring
links ..." http://www.citizensoldier.org/foundation.html
*
How to Talk to a Theological Liberal (If You
Must) http://www.tektonics.org/guest/libspeak.html
~ Janice
Received on Tue Jun 6 00:03:45 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 06 2006 - 00:03:45 EDT