$50 Lesson

You speak as if you're an expert, please provide your background.

Or is this just another BS opinion of yours?

HEARTLESS wrote: Or is this just another BS opinion of yours?

I thought the Bible was for all humans to read, not just theologians. Kindly point out where my interpretation is incorrect.

You can read, but clearly you don't understand. And you always avoid a direct question.

http://www.truthvanguard.com/category/j ... socialism/
Here is something for most to read, and Kate to dismiss and ignore.

HEARTLESS wrote: You can read, but clearly you don't understand. And you always avoid a direct question.

As always, when asked to explain your position, you evade. Kindly enlighten me as to where I am incorrect in my reading of that passage from the Bible.

I don't think there has ever been a time that the Bible wasn't interpreted by man to fit his own needs, desires, and way of life. It isn't the BIBLE.....it's the Bible according to whoever is interpreting it at the time. It has justified horrible wars, huge infringements on personal liberty and freedoms, and hate crimes against whoever is out of favor at the time......blacks, gays, women, etc. Whatever you want to do you can find justification for it in the Bible. Which is why I long ago stopped going to church. Hypocricy abounds in the Christian world....there are as many different Christian sects as there are flavors of ice cream, and each thinks THEIRS is the right one. If you don't conform, you are off to hell. I just never could believe that.....never could understand why people call themselves Christians then act in such un-christian ways........and then I realized that being a Christian isn't about letting the Bible direct your life, it's about letting your life and desires dictate what you believe out of the Bible and what you don't.

So Kate, the expert in theology, says we only need to read and understand one passage from the Bible to understand all. Think of all the paper we could have saved. :faint:

HEARTLESS wrote: www.truthvanguard.com/category/jesus-and-socialism/
Here is something for most to read, and Kate to dismiss and ignore.

Socialism is an economic and social system based upon the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Socialism is system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control. In a lay person’s language this simply means that all people having ALL things in common, It also is used to refer to a government taking things and redistributing them as the government sees fit. Either way, socialism, so defined, denies private ownership. But, ’tis not so, since the Scripture clearly endorses private ownership (see Exo. 20:15; 2-17, Deu. 22:1, Lev. 19:35-36, Pro. 3:9).

True, but why are those passages of the Old testament valid and these are not?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. - Exodus 21:7

What about Acts 2:44-45 it reads, “And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.” Does the passage above support the primitive communist mind-set? Again, I doubt it. There are difference between voluntary and obligatory. The former teaches and demonstrated their love for one another by giving self-sacrificingly. The latter, on the other hand, teaches that in a socialists or communists regime the state uses the authority to accomplish the desired result.

We're not talking about a form of government (the obligatory your author uses above), we're talking about individual behavior and whether Christians actually practice what Christ preached in Matthew and what Paul wrote in Acts.

HEARTLESS wrote: So Kate, the expert in theology, says we only need to read and understand one passage from the Bible to understand all. Think of all the paper we could have saved. :faint:

I have not claimed to be an expert in theology. That's your assumption to be wrong about. I've asked you repeatedly to please point out where I am incorrect in my interpretation of that passage. It seems very clear to me and you don't seem to have an answer. If I'm wrong, then enlighten me.