/christianity/ - Christian Theology

I forgot to add:

change my mind

>>2776

>1

The noahic covenant

>2

What's your alternative explanation, zero private or personal property? Unlivable and not biblical Not even Marx advocated that.

>3

If they took it from you, you weren't able to use it for however long it was gone. That's theft.

The question of how much value one places in an object is irrelevant to property claim. Are you talking about a situation where you consented to loaning an object?

>>2778

>1

Elaborate.

>2

It's all God's. It comes and goes by His will. It's livable. Yes, the tragedy of commons which will always lead to the righteous suffering destitution and poverty for the sinner's homes and riches. I don't consider that a problem, though.

This isn't a suggestion on how anyone else should live or to dictate law. Biblical law is very compassionate in it's allowance of profanity and I encourage anyone who needs those comforts to make use of them. However there's a lot more involved in living a spiritual life than merely following the rules.

>3

If I considered it mine it would be theft. I was merely caretaker til another assumed responsibility for it. It's irrelevant how they attain that responsibility, snatching it in the night is just fine. The same goes for my physical body, it's merely a temple I care for while I can. Any who might destroy my temple are already forgiven. I have no false expectations to retain anything longer than I will, everything goes where it belongs.

>>2783

< 1And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.

<2“The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given.

<3“Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.

<4“Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5“Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

We have delegated authority over God's creation

Your position is centered in a rejection of property claims by human persons. How do you reconcile that with the commandment "thou shalt not steal"?

Do you reject corporate ownership also? God tells Abraham "I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings". How can they not claim ownership?

>>2787

I agree that His will is that man's will dictate the earth.

>"thou shalt not steal"

We have the right to claim ownership, but that doesn't mean it's of high morality. Those who partake in this profanity are not to have their claims violated. Sensitivity to any entity's potential expectations and surprisal is a cornerstone of compassion.

>Do you reject corporate ownership also?

Yes, not by Christian law but by ethics.

>How can they not claim ownership?

"You and to your descendants", to me, is "undifferentiated light and love and it's differentiations." There's no such thing as individual existence, we only exist in relation to the universe in which we're weaved. The idea that one is not all or that all is not one is just philosophically fallacious.

I don't expect anyone to accept a position of nondualism, as it's not really a decision thing. Just honestly conveying the reality I exist within.

>>2792

>The idea that one is not all or that all is not one is just philosophically fallacious.

What philosophical tradition are you from? Are you speaking in allegory or are you just violating the law of non contradiction?

1 Peter 2:13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bond servants of God.

>>2795

Expound please

>>2798

What is your doctrine of the sovereignty of God? Isn't God an independent person?

>>2800

Now, despite Christ being my redeemer and Jesus being my guide, I don't claim to be a Christian. Perhaps 'progressive Christian' would be an apt title, but still, I've got no desire to misrepresent myself as anything but myself or lead anyone astray. I give my personal commune and experiences with the divine far more relevance than religious system. However this is my faith and I have a desire to explore it with others, also to share in praises and God's love. That's why I'm tryin' out this board~

God has complete sovereignty, which He's sub-contracted to us. In that same aspect of " His will is that man's will dictate the earth." Also His attribute of creator. We are co-creators.

>independent person

First off, not a person. God doesn't make decisions and distinctions like we do, He exists by His nature, absolutely. To exist otherwise would not be absolute. For example, God can't love us any more than he does because he's loved us absolutely the entire time.

The totality of His being is all that is. I think the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_of_immanence is perhaps the best model, and of course given His limitless nature he's infinitely intelligent.

He is us, light as our substance and the Holy Spirit as our mold. Still absolute, but we make distinctions and identifications, illusions which create layers of separation between us and spirit. All that muddying up is what led to our current state in physical matter: We defined good and evil. Again and again and again.

>>2803

>I'm not a christian

clearly. The very first teaching of the Christian bible is that there is a divine creator who created us. Rejecting that God is a person goes even beyond gnosticism.

>>2810

God is the substance. One could say the Father is a person, as is the Son and Spirit. I'd personally consider Christ to be the closest to God's 'person'.

You are right in that nobody can hold an abstraction as a possession, however intellectual property laws are made out of economic practicality to safeguard the artist's right to profit from their art (a principle that is scriptural, see 1 Timothy 5:18) and regardless of whether intellectual property theft is or is not inherently wrong, copyright is the law of the land and God commands you to obey Caesar.

>>2830

It it not a right to profit from art in the sense of inalienable rights, and 1 Tim 5:18 is a forced proof text to that point.

I went for a run. It was laborious. Am I entitled to be compensated for my labor by someone?

What about the artist who makes a piece and I choose not to go to the gallery. Am I sinning by not giving him reward for that?

1 Tim 5:18 is talking strictly about the work of elders.

>>2834

>1 Tim 5:18 is a forced proof text

No

>Am I entitled to be compensated for my labor by someone?

No because you did not offer anything to anyone. Art is beneficial to more than just the artist.

>What about the artist who makes a piece and I choose not to go to the gallery. Am I sinning by not giving him reward for that?

You're sinning if you take the fruits of his labor without rewarding him for it.

>1 Tim 5:18 is talking strictly about the work of elders.

No it isn't. That was Paul's object at that time, but scripture is not inconsistent. It doesn't use one form of reasoning in one place and then contradictory reasoning elsewhere. If the scripture is valid, then the reasoning of it is valid too. The preacher did not give you a tangible product, he did not give you something that you could hold in your hand, he gave you a string of words, meant to express a string of thoughts, which could be spoken by anyone and thought by anyone, not dissimilar to art, yet scripture says he deserves wages for that labor.