[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[John Carl]

Krimel the sunday school teacher,

[Krimel]
> You are citing a passage in which Paul is explaining his choices for his
> own
> personal relationship to his flock. He is kind of a self righteous bastard
> most of the time and this is just one example of that.
>

John:

I've had my issues with Paul in the past.  Tho I probably wouldn't go that
far.

But I'd say that in the passage I quoted, he's definitely railing against
lay-about pastors and priests and advocating a system where every member is
at least self-supporting.  I'd say such a rule would be even more important
in a community where all things are held in common.  Even the Soviets
frowned on shirkers.



>
> Evidence for the New Testament's socialistic, welfare oriented, flat out
> communistic approach are plentiful. There is of course the Good Samaritan;
> Jesus' condemnation of the scribes for tithing their herbs while widows
> starve;


Wasn't advocating welfare there so much as pointing out a hypocrisy.


> advice not to lay up stores on earth for your treasure is in heaven;
>

That's anti-capitalist, sure.  But it's not exactly materialistic socialism
either.


> letting the day be sufficient unto itself;


I'm sure both Buddha and Lao Tzu would agree.


> the lilies of the field who sow
> not neither do they reap but are decked out better than Solomon in all his
> glory;


Masanobu Fukuoka says the same.  It's not socialism, it's kindergardening.



> rich people jamming through the eye of a needle;


Well again, it's pretty anti-capitalistic, that's for sure.



> Jesus' advising the
> young rich man to sell all he owns and give it to the poor etc.
>

Now there's a clear case of examining one's real priorities, rather than
specific advice on economic matters.  The guy shouldn't have bragged about
how good he was at keeping the law, and he'd have gotten an easier-to-follow
directive.


>
> But the clearest evidence is in Acts which describes the 1st church and the
> relations of its members. It should be noted that Acts is an account about
> the actual people who knew Jesus personally and heard exactly what he had
> to
> say. It is relatively, though not entirely, free of the influences of the
> later Greek infested Pauline church.
>
>
There's a difference between communalism and communism, Krimel.  Although
this is an interesting discussion to me right now, ensconced as I am in the
midst of Royce's Problem of Christianity which is going over much this same
ground.

Also containing a bit of interesting and positive commentary on Buddhism
too, btw.  According to one reviewer I read, the first major American
Philosopher to do so.

I'd point out one important passage that obviates your point, just a bit.
It was the place where Judas complained about the cost of the anointing oils
and said the money would have been better spent feeding the poor and the
master replied, "the poor you have with you always."

Seems a bit cold this actual Jesus, compared to the modern super- loving
Jesus that is preached everywhere.


> And just to drive the point home that they were serious about their
> socialist leanings there is this from Acts 5:
>
>

Now there the whole Ananias and Sapphira story was not about killing people
who refused to share with the community, but they promised too and then lied
about it.

tsk-tsk.



> You seriously have to wonder sometimes about conservatives, tea baggers,
> fundamentalist and other bullshit artists. It's like they have never read
> their own scriptures. Uh, present company excluded, of course.
>
>
Of course.  And I take your point about religious fundamentalists and agree
completely.

It's kinda weird sometimes to explain to outsiders, but growing up
Adventist, they were all about religious liberty and the importance of the
separation between church and state.  They believed that they would one day
be persecuted by all the sunday churches getting together and passing laws
against worship on saturday - so they funded all kinds of political
influence against encroachment by the fundamentalists upon the federal
government.

Still do, in fact.

John