If communism is a religion, how do you explain that the first Christians were communists in it’s purist form?
<forget it>
Rubbish. Unlike religion, the scientific method doesn’t encourage blind devotion. Einstein’s theories overturned much of Newton’s - laws laid down by a famous figure which had been accepted for more than 200 years. If Einstein had had the religious-style reverence you claim, he would have simply intoned Newton’s Laws over and over in front of a statue of the Blessed Isaac to drown out his feelings of doubt. And if the rest of the scientific community had had the same reverence, they would have accused him of heresy instead of examining his ideas, testing them, finding they were more correct than Newton’s for objects travelling at relativistic speeds, and accepting them. This is diametrically opposite to religious reverence.
Amen. 
Those are two different communistic religions. The 20th Century variety just replaced a personality cult with state worship.
Acts says they were. Your linked article just comes off as a combination of whining and attacks on strawmen.
Acts says that the first Christian communities had no private ownership of property and had to contrute all private wealth to the group. By definition, those are communes. That is collectivism.
Your link tries to argue that the Christians weren’t calling for class warfare or an overthrow of the government, but that’s immateral to whether they lived in communistically. The author of the piece is trying to build on gratuitous addendums to the definition of communistic living.
They weren’t 20th Century statist communists, but they did live communistically, expected a reversal of social and class orders, believed the poor would inherit the Kingdom and the rich would be killed. They just thought the Son of man would come down from the sky and do it instead of haing to do it themselves.
So, you’ve never met a Jesuit, then? Reverence != blind devotion.
Some religions frequently demand blind devotion, but it’s hardly universal. And sometimes science does get blind devotion, even if it is usually discouraged - I’ve met quite a few people who happily believe everything in a textbook, but have never actually tested anything they learned.
That’s not science method, that’s just somebody believing a text book. One has nothing to do with the other.
Since when do Jesuits have any scientific faith for their metaphysical beliefs, by the way?
Absolutely false. As this article emphasized, the Book of Acts specifically states that people could retain their property, even as they were required to share with people in need. You would have known this if you had bothered to read the article in detail. There actions did not amount to Communism, and it’s a strawman argument to equate the two.
Once again, your response amounts to saying nothing more than “Was too!” without any serious substantiation.
I read the article. When it talks about the man who kept his property and lied to god didn’t it fail to mention that god killed him for that lie? Sounds a bit like Russia to me.
The article does make some valid points but mainly stresses the difference between the politics of communism and the basic philosophy which in large part is a pointless argument. I think when people make the claim that the early Christians practiced communism they are talking about the philosophy of socialism more than political details. The larger point is that they lived in a communal style where those who had more shared willingly with those in need. That’s the very thing many conservative Chriatians object to.
Granted it was by choice and not a specific commandment which the verse where the liar is killed comes in. Still, the article misses a few relevant verses
in the article
well it’s a little more than that. Evenwikki gives more
I found it interesting when they listed other examples of Chriatians who lived communally with common property,especially the writings from the Plymouth where we read why it didn’t work. Communal ownership resulted in less productivity.
Ananias was killed for his dishonesty, not for choosing to keep his property. In fact, Acts 5:3-4 specifically says,
“But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?** While it remained, was it not your own?**” (Emphasis added)
Peter very clearly identified the dishonesty of Ananias as his sin. He also clearly said that the land was his own, i.e. that Ananias was entitled to his property. There was nothing wrong with keeping his property; rather, it was his blatant dishonesty that earned God’s displeasure.
Those details are what makes Communism unique! The early church practiced communalism, not Communism. There is a huge difference between the two.
Your cite is childish and overly simplistic.
From you cite reason number one for why Chistianity has help science is: “Once more the Christian belief in the Creator allowed a break-through in thinking about nature. Only a truly transcendental Creator could be thought of as being powerful enough to create a nature with autonomous laws without his power over nature being thereby diminished. Once the basic among those laws were formulated science could develop on its own terms.”
So a Christian god allowed us to be creative without diminishing his greatness. :rolleyes:
I don’t think that’s right. Can you name one conservative who objects to anyone willingly sharing with those more in need?
Your objection is childish, especially since it has not refuted anything in the citation.
You can roll your eyes all you want, but rolling one’s eyes is not a rebuttal, much less a refutation. Jaki has thoroughly documented reasons why the Christian milieu provided an atmosphere that was not only conducive to scientific investigation, but actually inspired it. This has been throughly documented by other historians of science as well, as per ITR Champion’s earlier post.
Meh. Trying to get religious types to admit that religion doesn’t lead to discovery of anything useful is near-impossible. Just ask them to cite any useful fact that could only be achieved through prayer or divine intervention.
Meanwhile, I stand by my statement that we could easily afford to start phasing out religion entirely.
That’s already in progress. The more we learn about our real world, the less we need to explain natural things as being of the spiritual realm.
Indeed they were, they shared everything in common, that is what communism is supposed to be, and where the word came from, at least that is what a priest once told me!
I stand corrected. You’re right and that was a poor choice of words.
The objection is the goverment creating laws that force them to right?
You might be interested in the Wikki link I posted concerning Christian Communism. There’s an interesting read concerning why sharing all in common in failed in the Plymouth colony.
You’re right. I was kidding with that “sounds like Russia” thing. I always found that story interesting in that it smacks of OT warthful god rather than the mercy Jesus speaks of. He and his wife were killed for lieing. Kinda severe.
I’d say that a very valid point.
I doubt there’s any way to show a distinct causal link but can we absolutely dismiss the role of religion in the lives of key scientists and explorers?
It’s easy to say , “didn’t need religion for that to happen” but the discussion is about what actually happened
I think over generations we’ll see serious changes to religion as more people reject the mythology. I do think there are positive community contributins by the brotherhood of man philosophies within religion. I doubt we’ll see that disappear completely. I see religons becoming more liberal, and about the philosophies of life , rather than dogmatic about a particular prophet.