Replies

You asked:
I just wonder why you brought this up in the first place, as it seems irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

Hmmm,,, how did this all start?

I will really have to think about this one,,,

I think in Genesis, Chapter 1:
[1] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

And then, a whole lot of things happened,

then we got to post #5, where MrB stated to beaureguard:

"public ownership of all real estate" - wasn't that one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto?

>My comment now:

The above comment is somewhat relevant to the issue being discussed, however, just because it is only a part of an agenda of an ideology with which you do not agree, does not mean it is incorrect, or morally wrong.

The issue in the thread was not REALLY public ownership, but in the limits to what an individual can do with the land to which he holds title.
*****

#61
Posted by RonHolzwarth to MrB:

Yes, and that was also the way that the Native Americans considered land to be. The Natives here simply could not comprehend the idea that land could be "owned", so the European invaders simply took it from them, by force.

>My comment now:

By this I was first referring to the idea that maybe our idea that a person could actually "own" land just might be rethought, that there perhaps just may be be some limits to what an individual can do with the property he "owns".

It is simply a different way of looking at things, I threw that in to make people think.

Perhaps there are limits, and perhaps the concerns of generations yet unborn should be considered.

An individual will die, is it his right to destroy what he thinks he "owns"?

See Genesis, Chapter 2:
[15] The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.

and Job, Chapter 34:

[11] For according to the work of a man he will requite him, and according to his ways he will make it befall him.
[12] Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice.
[13] Who gave him charge over the earth and who laid on him the whole world?

and, Isaiah, Chapter 45:

[12] I made the earth, and created man upon it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host.

[18] For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it a chaos, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

There are those who believe that by this, the LORD meant that we are to care for the Earth, and not destroy it.
*****

#64
Posted by Blue Collar Christian to RonHolzwarth:

And the tribes here had a mainly Communist leadership. What's your point?

>My comment now:

Karl Marx had not yet been born, nor would he be born, for hundreds of years, when Europeans first crossed the Atlantic ocean, and discovered that there were already people living here.

So how could they have a "mainly Communist leadership"?

There were so many different tribes, with so many different types of leadership, that to lump them all together in any way, other than to say that they were not European, is impossible.

And, a very large number of tribes no longer exist. So, today we know nothing of them, or anything of what their values were.
*****

#71
Posted by RonHolzwarth to Blue Collar Christian

For a serious answer, I would have to say: Different cultures have different values.

For a more facetious one, we could take the next logical step from your argument - that we should seize ALL property from ALL Communist countries then, starting with China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc.

Since they are Communist, you believe that because we have such moral superiority, we should seize all that they own?
*****

#74
Posted by Blue Collar Christian to RonHolzwarth

Not at all. Generally, Communism promotes the public ownership of land, Capitalism is the opposite. Your comment seems to be an attempt to excuse Communism by stating that the Europeans stole the land from the Communist natives of America. Just seems to me to be a lost point, or something else out of LEFT field.

>My comment now:

There's those Communist natives of America again. Remember, Marx was not going to be born for hundreds of years yet,,,

And I didn't mean to excuse Communism. In practice, it didn't work, except in small communities that actually cared for one another.

See John, Chapter 13,
[34] A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
*****

#77
Posted by RonHolzwarth to Blue Collar Christian

Huh?

Looks to me like you just swapped sides. Earlier, you said: "And the tribes here had a mainly Communist leadership. What's your point?", as a justification for the European takeover.

Now you just said: "Generally, Communism promotes the public ownership of land."

That's a pretty broad brush! I think you are confusing different cultural values, and consider the American system of land ownership to be of Divine inspiration.

The early Christian communities were essentially Communist, or socialistic groups, known as "communes". So guess where the Karl Marx came up with the word "Communist". In fact, in Israel today, there are a great many communities that are known as "kibbutzes". Guess what they are,,,

Only later, when Soviet style Communists replaced the original ideal of people working together, did Communist ideology become tainted.

My original point was simple, looks like you missed it completely.

I said: "Different cultures, different values."
*****

#90
Posted by Blue Collar Christian to RonHolzwarth

I agree about the different cultures, different values.

>My comment now: Unless they are Communist.

And I cannot put ANY of them down.

>My comment now: Again, unless they are Communist.

I certainly did not use the Communist type society that the indigenous Americans had as justification for European takeover.

>There's those Communists again!

There is no justification for what happened, and there is no way to correct or revise it.

>My comment now: Have to agree with you there.

Communism, tainted or not, generally promotes common ownership, or NO ownership of land.

>My comment now: That is irrelevant, Communism was not really the issue being discussed. You simply brought it up several times.

I just wonder why you brought this up in the first place, as it seems irrelevant to the issue being discussed.
*****

OK. I'll try to answer that one.

It seems quite relevant to me, as the issue being discussed in this thread is not the government literally taking away land, but in placing limits upon what an individual can do to the face of the Earth that the Lord created for us (and our decendents) to live in, and of course, collect taxes. That's a bummer, huh?

But I might remind you of Matthew, Chapter 22:

[17] Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?"
[18] But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, "Why put me to the test, you hypocrites?
[19] Show me the money for the tax." And they brought him a coin.
[20] And Jesus said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?"
[21] They said, "Caesar's." Then he said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

So that is the final word about taxes, I hope.

And as for the question of, who does the Earth belong to anyway?

See Psalms, Chapter 24:

[1] The earth is the LORD's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein;
[2] for he has founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the rivers.

Then look at Timothy, Chapter 6:
[7] for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world;

So, considering the above, do you really believe a person who holds title for his lifetime only, OWNS part of the Earth, and can do whatever he wants with it?

Or, are we only stewards of the Earth that the Lord has created for us and our descendants?

That is the real issue.