They were voluntarily Communistic, that is why it is called it’s purest form. Not forced by a government like the Soviets did.
True Marxist communism has no government either. Coersion is not part of the definition of communism.
I disagree with this interpretation. I agree with you that Peter’s complaint was Ananias’ dishonesty; and that Peter certainly declares that Ananias’ land was under his ownership. But I disagree that there was “nothing wrong with keeping his property”; noting that it did, before he sold it, belong to Ananias doesn’t necessarily mean that owning it in and of itself meant nothing bad. Just that owning something, and then selling it to raise funds, was not bad (or, at least, not as bad as dishonesty of that type). It misses out on potential alternative interpretations; for example, perhaps it is acceptable to own property, so long as one intends to and does then sell it on; a temporary ownership might be acceptable where a permanent one is not. We do not know what Peter’s reaction would be to Ananias keeping his property would be, because Ananias did not commit that act; all we know is Peter’s reaction to Ananias temporarily owning property, before selling it to raise funds which would be distributed among all by the disciples.
I would note also that per Acts 5:2 32, “All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.”
That’s right; I don’t believe it. I specifically acknowledged that astronomy and certain other fields are regarded as science in an extended sense, even though they do not lend themselves to experimental methods. Cosmology would fall into that category as well. The difference is that they are only regarded as science in that extended sense, (ultimately, by convention alone). I don’t have a problem with that, but we have to acknowledge that this is not the core of strict science.
And I would agree that he was a proto-scientist. As I have repeatedly emphasized, there were individuals who displayed tremendous scientific potential back then. Ultimately though, that’s all it was – proto-science, lacking the experimental rigor which characterizes the modern science that emerged under the Christian influence in Western Europe.
See my earlier comments – most specifically, my most recent reply to Voyager. I have repeatedly acknowledged (indeed, emphasized) that there are certain fields which are still regarded as science by extension. I have also repeatedly acknowledged that this happens by necessity. Finally, I have repeatedly emphasized that the distinguishing characteristic of modern science (as it emerged in Western Europe) is the use of experimental rigor. Obviously, this cannot be applied in certain fields, but it is nevertheless the touchstone that marked the emergence of strict science.
I have stated these things repeatedly and with a great deal more patience than what is warranted. Based on past experience with the SDMB on these topics though, I know that certain people here will continue to ignore this, focusing instead on the same old strawmen representations. It’s something that I’ve learned to expect and live with.
I think equally good cases can be made that science began with Galileo, and that Christianity did not have a major influence since there was 1200 years or more between the primacy of Christianity and the rise of science, or that science actually began at a low level well before Christianity. In either case, Christianity did not have an major influence.
Your notion of science by extension is new to me. No such distinction was made when I was at MIT. Do you have a recognized authority who makes this distinction in the kind of fundamental way that you do. I’d say, in a rough way, that science involves observation, hypothesis building based on the evidence so gathered, and hypothesis testing with an attempt at falsification of a hypothesis. I don’t see any big difference between testing a hypothesis by doing an experiment in the traditional sense and testing a hypothesis by making additional observations.
Two famous hypothesis tests in physics was the Michaelson-Morley experiment and the eclipse watching expedition which failed to falsify relativity. These both involved making careful observations. In the former, light created by the experimenters was captured. In the latter, light from the Sun was captured. Is there really such a big difference between these? Is there a big difference in testing relativity between sending an atomic clock up on a satellite and checking for time dilation and observing the decay rates of particles and checking for the same thing?
I can see someone saying that a person in history was not a scientist until they followed a formal description of the scientific method. I don’t necessarily agree, but I can see it. Experimentation trumping observation, even to the level you have it, no.
Religion has given us a lot and not only in art and music but in ethics. As it declines we are kimd of losing our cultural identity. I found the below interview interesting.
But surely losing cultural identity is nothing new, on the large scale. It’s pretty much inevitable, even without a decline in religious belief, and newer identities spring forth. Besides, as you lose, you gain.
Would I give up the works of Brahms, the painting of the Sistine Chapel and any other religious inspired work of art, to have avoided the horrors of the Inquisition and medieval witch-hunts?
In an instant.
If I gained something that would be one thing but I am not the elite. They always take away your freedom of faith first, unless your Muslim. Money is what they have and that buffers them. Then we lose all of our freedom and become slaves. At least I had a good and a full life of freedom to remember.
I see this as just the first step in something more sinister. Thank God I still have the freedom of the internet. I in a way helped in a small way to connect people with it. Little did I know years later it would be how I would understand the greater truths of what is happening to my Country by searching outside my borders for the truth.
No one can take my faith from me unless they kill me. They have tried before in past centuries and religion always comes back but this time I’m not so sure… If the plan is one world government and one world currency in the long run. Freedom and religion go hand in hand really. It is just the media that eroded us to the point that we think we don’t need it.
I’m going to miss my freedom.
Who is trying to tak your faith away from you, and what is “really happening” to your country?
Your Muslim what?
Clearly he meant to say “They always take away your freedom of faith first, unless your Muslim overlord is feeling magnanimous that day and allows you to pray while you are being sodomized by his camel”, but the Muslim overlords of the Internet have censored his reply because that’s just the sort of thing they do.
Could you give some examples of the elite taking away a freedom of faith for non-Muslims but leaving that freedom for Muslims?
Out of interest, I would also be interested to hear of your examples of how over history the elite have “always” taken away freedom of faith first.
I see this as just the first step in something more sinister. Thank God I still have the freedom of the internet. I in a way helped in a small way to connect people with it. Little did I know years later it would be how I would understand the greater truths of what is happening to my Country by searching outside my borders for the truth.
Freedom and religion only go hand in hand so far as it is a choice among many. You could well have - and, indeed, there have been and are - religious theocracies, where religion means oppression and control. Likewise there have been times where cracking down on religion, or on particular religions, has removed people’s freedom. Surely, when it comes to freedom, the point is not what the choice is per se, but that there is a choice? You aren’t free if the option is perfect but that’s the only one you have. Sometimes freedom means that you must offer bad choices - after all, if it wasn’t a difficult thing to live with, we wouldn’t consider it as important as we do.
Just in general; i’m an atheist, and I really have no desire to take your faith from you.
I know you don’t and it’s not the threat from Atheists I’m worried about. What worries me is the future of the elite. The Trilateral Commission and The Bilderbergers that are in Washington. They control the banks and if sometime in the future control us I may have to make a choice on my faith.
I left a link in my last post that explains how Washington is connected in this and Obama is just a tool. It seems far out but this goes back 60+ years and it is a long range goal to have the rich elite control the worlds people. Since the Muslims are the richest people and we are already caving to their beliefs I don’t think Islam will be affected by it. I can’t say for sure how it will play out but if it is as they predict it will not be compatible with my faith.
Um…the rich elite already control the world. They always have. You don’t need a big conspiracy for this - you just need people with a lot of money and few scruples, and there are a lot of those in the world.
The rich elite will never seek to eliminate faith amongst the masses - it’s far too useful to them. In fact the rich elite frequently use people’s faith to maintain their power by distracting the masses with rhetoric and trivialities. “We must liberate Jerusalem from the infidels!” “Death to America, the Great Satan!” “Never mind about the economy - gays want to get married and they must be stopped!” It’s an easy way to get people’s righteous anger aimed at something other than oneself.
And you’re falling right into their trap.
If one truly has faith, no one can take it from them, they may try to prohibit the practice of it, but faith is in the person’s personal mind. If one finds their faith not to be true, then they change thier minds, like a lot of former believers in religions do. They change religions or drop the belief, but their faith is not taken away.
Some people belong to a denomination but do not practice it or just go for the social aspect of it.
People seem to use faith in a religion for different reasons. Some to better the world, some to impose their beliefs on others.
So the Jews and the Muslims are conspiring to destroy those of THE ONE TRUE FAITH*?
When you type this stuff out, have you ever considered reading it out loud to see how it sounds?
I don’t hate. I dislike conspiracy. I am into the truth but it seems to be covered in layers of distractions and delusions. My faith is not a hateful one but one of love. As far as politics I don’t believe in much of what I see or half of what I hear.
I’m just curious as to how it is going to play out. If we will join the Northern Union as the Europeans have under the Euro. Eventually will we all join together as one big government? What will our countries rules be? How will we be governed? Will I still have the freedom I enjoy and what about my children’s freedom? Will I work and have food and a where will I live?
Perciful, I was going to respond, but this already seems to be hijacking the conversation a bit. If you want to start a new thread on this subject, i’d be happy to participate.