Catholic Communism

[metis]

Communism is forced not voluntary.

Yes, it forces people to cooperate and share. Are not these were qualities mentioned in the Bible, and it's not in reference to what we may call "charity"?

BTW, at least twice in Acts it says that the apostles shared their income between them, so...

And just to be clear, I'm not advocating an autocratic system like Trump is trying to create with him at the top, but more of an economic system based on compassion and not dog-eat-dog social Darwinism.

 

[metis]

The RCC was a theocracy.

Not really as the Pope was never the emperor. However,unfortunately there were too many times whereas they were too "chummy", let's say.

 

[metis]

Also scale is important. Small scale communistic communities can work, no doubt, but when you expand that to 250 million people not so easy (well more like impossible).

Good point. However, if a society voted it in and was conscientious and pragmatic when setting it up, it may be able to be done, but probably not without periodic modifications. What I am not advocating, however, is any economic system whereas incomes are fully equal as that wouldn't work and it would be unfair anyway.

 

[Phantasman]

Not really as the Pope was never the emperor. However,unfortunately there were too many times whereas they were too "chummy", let's say.

You need to seek.

Caesaropapism's chief example is the authority the Byzantine (East Roman) Emperors had over the Church of Constantinople or Eastern Christian Church from the 330 consecration of Constantinople through the tenth century.[4][5] The Byzantine Emperor would typically protect the Eastern Church and manage its administration by presiding over Ecumenical Councils and appointing Patriarchs and setting territorial boundaries for their jurisdiction.[6] The Emperor exercised a strong control over the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and the Patriarch of Constantinople could not hold office if he did not have the Emperor's approval - Wiki on Caearopapism

The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the emperor as having great influence and ultimate regulatory authority within the religious discussions involving the early Christian councils of that time, e.g., most notably the dispute over Arianism. Constantine himself disliked the risks to societal stability that religious disputes and controversies brought with them, preferring where possible to establish an orthodoxy.[228] His influence over the early Church councils was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity; what proper worship and doctrines and dogma consisted of was for the Church to determine, in the hands of the participating bishops.[229]- Wiki on Constantine

The first known usage of the term 'heresy' in a civil legal context was in 380 by the "Edict of Thessalonica" of Theodosius I. Prior to the issuance of this edict, the Church had no state-sponsored support for any particular legal mechanism to counter what it perceived as 'heresy'. By this edict, in some senses, the line between the Catholic Church's spiritual authority and the Roman State's jurisdiction was blurred. One of the outcomes of this blurring of Church and State was a sharing of State powers of legal enforcement between Church and State authorities, with the state enforcing what it determined to be orthodox teaching.

Within five years of the official 'criminalization' of heresy by the emperor, the first Christian heretic, Priscillian, was executed in 385 by Roman officials. For some years after the Protestant Reformation, Protestant denominations were also known to execute those whom they considered heretics.- Wiki

I see Christ in none of this. The catholic priests succumbed to the same that Jesus rejected in the desert from the devil.

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

 

[Spiderman]

Paul went through worse. What did it teach you? Was there no silver lining at all?

It taught me too much to text on this slow phone. There was a silver lining

 

[Spiderman]

Who's your favorite communist @Laika?

I like Pol Pot

Communists conquered and influenced more of the globe than any other form of Government I can think of. Many Democracies are influenced by communist philosophy. I'd not be surprised if the Anticipated Antichrist will be a communist Dictator.

 

[Phantasman]

Who's your favorite communist @Laika?

I like Pol Pot

Communists conquered and influenced more of the globe than any other form of Government I can think of. Many Democracies are influenced by communist philosophy. I'd not be surprised if the Anticipated Antichrist will be a communist Dictator.

Never heard of an Antichrist (capital A) to anticipate. John mentions antichrist (small a) that is already among them 4 times.

Sounds like a Revelations thing. I wouldn't hold my breath.

But, reforming the orthodox Bible HAS resulted in other translations capitalizing the word to divert spiritual thought to those who have an agenda.

KJV
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
NASB
Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
WEB
Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.
GNV
Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is that Christ? the same is that Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son.

Without spiritual gnosis, which is true? To me, the ink clearly changes our perception.

Paul saw it as well.

Galatians:
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

There is Christ and Jesus Christ. Jesus became "the " Christ (by the Chrism of the Spirit). This "new" gospel was teaching that man could not become Christs like Jesus did. Therefore, teaching antichrist.

Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way. There is a rebirth and an image of rebirth. It is certainly necessary to be born again through the image. Which one? Resurrection. The image must rise again through the image. The bridal chamber and the image must enter through the image into the truth: this is the restoration. Not only must those who produce the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, do so, but have produced them for you. If one does not acquire them, the name ("Christian") will also be taken from him. But one receives the unction of the [...] of the power of the cross. This power the apostles called "the right and the left." For this person is no longer a Christian but a Christ.- Gospel of Philip

Jesus taught what his spiritual mother and father wanted. To become sons of our spiritual parents rather than our fleshly parents. John 1:12 Luke 14:26

Since orthodoxy denies this, are they the antichrist Paul and John spoke of?

Perception.

 

[metis]

I see Christ in none of this. The catholic priests succumbed to the same that Jesus rejected in the desert from the devil.

First of all, there is nothing that you posted in your response to me that refutes what I said with the exception of the above.

With the above, it is an example of stereotyping and bigotry that should be well beneath you. It's taking a "worm's eye" view of the church that is blatantly dishonest, citing the bad but ignoring the good that was done. In the process of doing that, it is you who has succumbed to evil.

Yes, there was plenty of bad that was done, but there also was plenty of good as well. Maybe do some studying on this, but at least try and do so objectively, but not with your anti-Catholic bigotry, OK?

Until then...

 

[Spiderman]

First of all, there is nothing that you posted in your response to me that refutes what I said with the exception of the above.

With the above, it is an example of stereotyping and bigotry that should be well beneath you. It's taking a "worm's eye" view of the church that is blatantly dishonest, citing the bad but ignoring the good that was done. In the process of doing that, it is you who has succumbed to evil.

Yes, there was plenty of bad that was done, but there also was plenty of good as well. Maybe do some studying on this, but at least try and do so objectively, but not with your anti-Catholic bigotry, OK?

Until then...

This

I'm truly delighted to hear it from a Jew! . I've seen other such gems from you! *round of applause* for metis!

 

[metis]

This

I'm truly delighted to hear it from a Jew! . I've seen other such gems from you! *round of applause* for metis!

Thank you, and I would bow but I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to straighten out again.

 

[Phantasman]

First of all, there is nothing that you posted in your response to me that refutes what I said with the exception of the above.

With the above, it is an example of stereotyping and bigotry that should be well beneath you. It's taking a "worm's eye" view of the church that is blatantly dishonest, citing the bad but ignoring the good that was done. In the process of doing that, it is you who has succumbed to evil.

Yes, there was plenty of bad that was done, but there also was plenty of good as well. Maybe do some studying on this, but at least try and do so objectively, but not with your anti-Catholic bigotry, OK?

Until then...

It's not about bad or good. It's about the spiritual truth taught by Jesus Christ. Love your enemies. Kill your enemies.

The first is of Christ. The latter, adopted by the Pharisee's and catholics (by placing priests above man).

Sorry if it evades you. But Christ never advocated taking life from men, but rather to give it of a greater freedom.

Protect them if you wish. And if it's because of your wife's belief, Luke 14:26 clearly shows something of importance, whether you believe it or not.

 

[metis]

Protect them if you wish. And if it's because of your wife's belief, Luke 14:26 clearly shows something of importance, whether you believe it or not.

It's not because of my "wife's belief" but because of the bigotry that some show, whether that be religious bigotry, racial bigotry, etc. You are stereotyping an entire denomination, which is a form of lying because all people within any group are logically not going to be the same. And then you demean the entire Catholic priesthood, which is what bigotry based on stereotyping is like.

Here at RF in the past, I, and many others here at RF, have confronted those who use bigotry on various issues, so I'm not a one-trick pony nor the Lone Ranger. Stereotyping is morally repugnant as it is demeaning an entire group. So please don't strut around here portraying yourself as being a believer in Jesus and then post stuff that is morally despicable as you have done. After all, Jesus said "...judge ye not...", and yet here you are doing the opposite of what Jesus and Paul taught you.

So, you're going to have to decide, are you going to believe in Jesus and Paul, or are you going to continue to judge people and entire groups? Your choice, but you can't have it both ways. And if your denomination, regardless of what that may be, teaches you that judging groups and people is acceptable, then maybe seek out a denomination that teaches what Jesus, Paul, and the other apostles taught.

IOW, don't try to be God. You've made your choice where you want to attend, and others have made theirs, but I do believe any truly moral person would respect their decision even if they solidly disagree with many of the teachings. There's always going to be some bad apples in any large bushel, but it's unethical to judge the entire bushel by them. You are not God and you are not Jesus, so please stop acting like you are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Communism is forced not voluntary.

What appears to be voluntary in religion is often forced through supernatural threats.

 

[whirlingmerc]

What appears to be voluntary in religion is often forced through supernatural threats.

but saving faith involves a change of heart and 'he who fears is not perfected in love' according to 1 John
'God loves a cheerful giver' in Corinthians... not 'a fearful giver'

 

[Phantasman]

It's not because of my "wife's belief" but because of the bigotry that some show, whether that be religious bigotry, racial bigotry, etc. You are stereotyping an entire denomination, which is a form of lying because all people within any group are logically not going to be the same. And then you demean the entire Catholic priesthood, which is what bigotry based on stereotyping is like.

Here at RF in the past, I, and many others here at RF, have confronted those who use bigotry on various issues, so I'm not a one-trick pony nor the Lone Ranger. Stereotyping is morally repugnant as it is demeaning an entire group. So please don't strut around here portraying yourself as being a believer in Jesus and then post stuff that is morally despicable as you have done. After all, Jesus said "...judge ye not...", and yet here you are doing the opposite of what Jesus and Paul taught you.

So, you're going to have to decide, are you going to believe in Jesus and Paul, or are you going to continue to judge people and entire groups? Your choice, but you can't have it both ways. And if your denomination, regardless of what that may be, teaches you that judging groups and people is acceptable, then maybe seek out a denomination that teaches what Jesus, Paul, and the other apostles taught.

IOW, don't try to be God. You've made your choice where you want to attend, and others have made theirs, but I do believe any truly moral person would respect their decision even if they solidly disagree with many of the teachings. There's always going to be some bad apples in any large bushel, but it's unethical to judge the entire bushel by them. You are not God and you are not Jesus, so please stop acting like you are.

"So, you're going to have to decide, are you going to believe in Jesus and Paul, or are you going to continue to judge people and entire groups?"

Considering that it was the office of the "priest" that was the problem in the Gospels and Pauls letters to the churches, I will follow what the apostles clearly show. The only time the word priest is mentioned are as adversaries to gospel truth, and their actions (of celestial authority) demeaning.

I don't judge the man, but the position. The true church is not a monarchy. Religions are. The Holy Spirit leads one to "all truth", not men who say that they are above others to receive it.

To receive the Holy Spirit by the "touch" of a priest is flesh (thinking). To say that the church institutes communion between man and God is flesh (thinking).

I am better off in my closet with the door shut, than to follow the ways of the church of flesh.

"You are not God and you are not Jesus, so please stop acting like you are."

Never. I am not God as Jesus wasn't God. I seek being the same son of God that Jesus said he was while in flesh.

John:
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The priests are your father. Mine is of the Spirit. If the priests taught you to be sons of God, you would be greater than them. This is why the Pharisee's planned the death of the Son. And why the Priests took it from man.

Your telling me not to be Jesus is saying don't be "one" (with Father and Son) as he taught.

It's your choice who you seek for the truth. The priest is not worthy of mine. The Spirit is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

but saving faith involves a change of heart and 'he who fears is not perfected in love' according to 1 John
'God loves a cheerful giver' in Corinthians... not 'a fearful giver'

Is this supposed to be relevant to my post?

“I don’t think God likes it when people are threatened into going along with religion” doesn’t imply that it doesn’t happen.

 

[metis]

The only time the word priest is mentioned are as adversaries to gospel truth, and their actions (of celestial authority) demeaning.

Is that why "priest" shows up 797 times in what you call the "O.T.". Do you even have a clue how the priesthood got started and why it was mandated by God? Maybe read Genesis 15:18 . If God didn't want a priesthood, then why did He mandate it?

I don't judge the man, but the position.

Nonsense, you stereotyped and judged the men as well, so lying is certainly not beneath you.

The true church is not a monarchy.

It's a monarchy that based on God and Jesus being King. It never was considered to be a democracy, so apparently your JW leaders have lied to you again.

To receive the Holy Spirit by the "touch" of a priest is flesh (thinking).

Apparently you never read of the "laying on of hands" as it shows up in the NT.

The priests are your father.

No, I'm not Catholic nor Christian, so again you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Your telling me not to be Jesus is saying don't be "one" (with Father and Son) as he taught.

You are not Jesus even though it seems that you think you are.

And, again, you're dishonesty is showing as the issue being discussed was judging others, which you blatantly continue to do in defiance of what Jesus and Paul taught. So, I guess it begs the question as to whether you actually are a Christian if you continue to defy what they've taught you? Oh, wait a minute, you don't believe them-- you only blindly believe in what your JW leaders tell you to believe.

It's your choice who you seek for the truth.

It's obvious from what you wrote above that you really haven't a clue what the Truth is, preferring to blindly obey your JW teachers instead of what's actually found in the Bible. Maybe read the Bible as it actually is instead of what they tell you it is.

 

[Phantasman]

JW? Where in the world did you come up with that? You must be thinking of someone else. I do NOT follow JW ideology.

You use the OT to make your point. It was "done away" with the arrival of the truth. John 1

The OT is a book of angels, not God.

In Acts 7 Stephen reveals the OT truth and is stoned for it. And you stone me for the same reason. Those "priests" were the problem. Those "fathers" slew the prophets. The warning went unheeded so that by the time truth arrived, the Jews couldn't see it.

The path is narrow, Many called, few chosen. I pray that I barely make it into the glory of what the kingdom offers. The wide road has everyone saying they are saved and forgiven. Suck up to the priests, and they will guide you all the way.

What did Christ say about those Jewish priests?

Matthew:
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Without the Spirit, you see the scriptures as the world does.

 

[Laika]

Who's your favorite communist @Laika?

I like Pol Pot

Lol. I don't really have a favourite, but reading Erich Fromm and Wilhelm Reich really helped me deal with depression and coming out as Bisexual which made a big difference. James Burnham is an interesting Trotskyist author as he switched sides and became a Conservative and is "food for thought" when you wonder if the whole thing was worth it.

I did start out as a Trotsky Sympathiser back in sixth form but after having read (and re-read) Maurice Cornforth's books I prefer Marxist-Leninist theory. The politics is horrible, but the theory is much more systematic and easier to defend coherently in debates or apply to new ideas and situations which is a big advantage over the alternatives. He's also interesting because of his views on Science as part of politics and socialism make it more interesting to explore as a set of ideas. Given how difficult it is to be a communist nowdays, I feel pretty confident that without his books I wouldn't have lasted this long. Cornforth's books are as close as I get to a "Commie bible" as a constant reference resource anyway.

I think that would be a top four in terms of influences if you asked me.

Communists conquered and influenced more of the globe than any other form of Government I can think of. Many Democracies are influenced by communist philosophy. I'd not be surprised if the Anticipated Antichrist will be a communist Dictator.

Well, given the extent to which Communist dictators are already demonised, I think Christians will certainly accuse any new Communist dictators of being the Anti-Christ. It's almost traditional.