True intentions of Christ's teachings (Sirs)

[BT]

I don't believe I make such blanket statements.

You came damn close.

I don't think you really want to follow this course of logic out because you won't like where it takes you. The Church does not believe that the money you have is yours but that it is a blessing from God and ultimately belongs to Him. There is no question of ownership.

The Church is, as always, practical in such matters. She recognizes the ownership of private property insofar as it relates to temporal existence. Though the Church does recommend voluntary poverty.

Do I own anything?

Legally? Yes.
Philosophically? No.

[Universe Prince]

The Church does not believe that the money you have is yours but that it is a blessing from God and ultimately belongs to Him. There is no question of ownership.

Yes, it ultimately belongs to God, not to the government. We don't live in a theocracy, thank God.

[_JS]

Since y'all are having such a good time and since Sirs wants Biblical verses about taking things. I thought I'd post the entire passage from Luke 6:29-30

29 To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic.
30 Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.

And......?  Just another version to turning one's cheek.  That has what to do with anything I've said?

It looks to me like property is not highly valued by Christ. I notice that verse 30 didn't say anything about murdering the one who takes what is yours, or crying, bitching, and moaning about it either.

[sirs]

Since y'all are having such a good time and since Sirs wants Biblical verses about taking things. I thought I'd post the entire passage from Luke 6:29-30

29 To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic.
30 Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.

And......?  Just another version to turning one's cheek.  That has what to do with anything I've said?

It looks to me like property is not highly valued by Christ. I notice that verse 30 didn't say anything about murdering the one who takes what is yours, or crying, bitching, and moaning about it either.

NOTHING materalistic or of this earth is "highly valued by Christ"  oy       What IS (highly valued), are the choices we make, and last time I checked murdering was one of those 10 commandment requests, to not do.  So again, not sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China.  Trying to perform some back door biblical guilt trip to shut people up, who don't agree with your ideology?  Or are you again trying to lay claim that we need to be living in a Theocracy?

[_JS]

Why do you keep talking about guilt and guilt trips?

[hnumpah]

It looks to me like property is not highly valued by Christ.

Boy, I'll say. We've already seen references where he says it's okay to take someone else's corn, and it was okay for David to take bread from the temple. And XO pointed out that he cast the demons into the swine and caused some poor pig-farmers whole herd to commit soooey-cide en masse, with no mention of offering payment for the little porkers.

[Lanya]

I didn't think the Pharisees were so much condemning them for taking the corn, as  they were for laboring on the Sabbath.  That is a big no no.
And the temple shewbread:
Showbread, shewbread, Schaubrot, lechem (hap)pānīm(לחם פנים), in a biblical or Jewish context, refers to the cakes or loaves of bread which were always present on a specially dedicated table, in the Temple in Jerusalem as an offering to God. An alternative, and more appropriate, translation would be presence bread[1], since the Bible requires that the bread is constantly in the presence of Yahweh[2].
(via Wiki)

So they were eating the bread that was supposed to be an offering to God.
And Jesus said that was OK.  No wonder they killed him.

[_JS]

So they were eating the bread that was supposed to be an offering to God.
And Jesus said that was OK.  No wonder they killed him.

One might get the impression that His call was radical and not comfortable.

[Universe Prince]

Something we might be missing about the eating of grain/corn is that such was allowed by Jewish law (Deuteronomy 23:25). And basically the law did respect private property. "When you come into your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not use a sickle on your neighbor's standing grain." In other words, you can take a little to eat, but you don't get to steal from your neighbor's harvest. Also, when David took showbread for he and his men to eat, he did not sneak in and steal it. He went to the priest and asked for some bread to eat, and all the priest had on hand that could be given was day old showbread (1 Samuel 21:1-6). So rushing to conclude that all this means Jesus was somehow disapproving of or was apathetic to the notion of property ownership would be inadvisable to say the least.

[_JS]

Something we might be missing about the eating of grain/corn is that such was allowed by Jewish law (Deuteronomy 23:25). And basically the law did respect private property. "When you come into your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not use a sickle on your neighbor's standing grain." In other words, you can take a little to eat, but you don't get to steal from your neighbor's harvest. Also, when David took showbread for he and his men to eat, he did not sneak in and steal it. He went to the priest and asked for some bread to eat, and all the priest had on hand that could be given was day old showbread (1 Samuel 21:1-6). So rushing to conclude that all this means Jesus was somehow disapproving of or was apathetic to the notion of property ownership would be inadvisable to say the least.

And Luke 6:30?

How does that support property ownership?

[Universe Prince]

And Luke 6:30?

How does that support property ownership?

I don't recall saying it did. I notice that, at the very least, Jesus does not say "communally owned/ultimately God owned goods". He says "your goods". Back up a bit. Jesus also says, "To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also." So is that proof that Jesus was against self-defense? If someone tries to beat you up, Jesus wants you to stand there and make yourself a good target? I'm sure the abused spouses of the world will take comfort in that. Or how about let's not take a sentence or two out of context and decide that means Jesus was against private property ownership.

[hnumpah]

Something we might be missing about the eating of grain/corn is that such was allowed by Jewish law (Deuteronomy 23:25). And basically the law did respect private property. "When you come into your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not use a sickle on your neighbor's standing grain." In other words, you can take a little to eat, but you don't get to steal from your neighbor's harvest.

Actually that was one of two possible explanations I was waiting for our self proclaimed Bible expert to come up with, though it is related to the other. That was from Leviticus 19:

9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest.
10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.

[sirs]

Something we might be missing about the eating of grain/corn is that such was allowed by Jewish law (Deuteronomy 23:25). And basically the law did respect private property. "When you come into your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not use a sickle on your neighbor's standing grain." In other words, you can take a little to eat, but you don't get to steal from your neighbor's harvest.

Actually that was one of two possible explanations I was waiting for our self proclaimed Bible expert to come up with, though it is related to the other.

You were waiting for Js, to come up with that?  oooookay

Why do you keep talking about guilt and guilt trips?

A) I didn't realize that using the term guilt a max of 1-2x = "Why do you keep talking about guilt and guilt trips?"

B) YOU're the one that inferred some supposed unChristian-like behavior if anyone dares "bitch" or "moan" or "cries" if one dares not agree with someone else's ideolgy or how best we're to "help our fellow man"

So, since you seem to be on this bandwagon that Christ would support government intervention in "helping our fellow man", where's your push for this needed theocracy?  I mean, if we're largely a Christian nation, and Christ demands we help our fellow man, regardless of how, then obviously we need a theocracy to help bring that about.  The money belongs to God, anyways.  Perhaps it can be called the U.S. Church of Modern Day Saints.  Tax dollars go directly to them, and then they fulfil Christ's desire for us to help our fellow man

[Universe Prince]

Actually that was one of two possible explanations I was waiting for our self proclaimed Bible expert to come up with, though it is related to the other. That was from Leviticus 19:

9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest.
10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.

I thought of that too, but I think the bit from Deuteronomy has more direct bearing on the situation in question.

[hnumpah]

You were waiting for Js, to come up with that?  oooookay

Uh, no.

...considering I've apparently spent a hell of a lot longer studying the bible and Christ's teachings than yourself...