In the Acts 2 church, the people were giving to each other out of their own good will to those who had a need, and they were giving freely, without regulation of how much they were to give. In other words, they shared what they had out of a shared love for one another and a common goal, living for Christ and glorifying God. In a communist society, people give because a system of government forces them to give.

the state will disappear under communism

Also, I'm joking

But there are some out there like this

Absolute Monarchy

probably

Have smaller communities which act like Hutterite societies, a type of joint living similar to Communism works splendidly then.
It just makes the group weak to larger external forces.
Which makes a one cultured state under most likely an absolute monarchy best because it has most of the unity which Hutterite societies provide while being strong and efficient.

Fascism

@The Big Oof I will debunk that soon

Give me a moment

@Da_Fish I was joking

Autocracy

@Da_Fish, if you could still post whatever you were going to for debunking Shen Bapiro's joke, I'd be very interested

Not to imply I believe the joke anyway, but I've been somewhat studying the Bible lately

@Diadochi sure

Looking at the Acts of the Apostles. Studying the way early Christians lives is very important to our understand and worship of God. However, some verses seem to be born out of circumstance, rather than the law of God itself. Was Acts 4:32-35 the law, or the circumstance of the time? I am inclined to think circumstances considering other passages. The Bible at no other point has a problem with private property. It encourages charity, but does not require it. The story of Cain and Abel comes to mind. It is widely believed by biblical scholars and historians that, Acts 4:32-35 was not what was required, but the circumstance due to lack of resources and mass ostracizing of Christians. Until the Edict of Milan, Christians lives in constant state of persecution, and such a communal system made more survival state. This did not make them communist, a moment that arose in the 1800’s, it simply made them, like humans do, meet their circumstance with adaptation. Communism is permanent and seen as the only moral and correct way to view society. While what these early Christians did was similar to Communalism, it did not assert it as permanent, nor did it assert it as the one true way to live or act.

@Diadochi that’s the short version

thank you

@Legion no

according to abrahamic law legion must be burned

Burn the muslims

ironically enough

didnt adolf like muslims

kek

just because we had a verse against jews the nazis wanted a german qur'an translation

Baptists are not Protestants

People are usually put in one of three religious groups. If you are not a Jew or a Roman Catholic, then automatically you are a Protestant. Consequently, Baptists are usually called "Protestants." However, this does not match the facts. Baptists never have been Protestants.

The Protestant Reformation is usually dated from October 31, 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenburg, Germany. However, this was only one of a series of acts that led to the open rupture with Rome.

An event of utmost importance, but often unnoticed, is the Second Diet (or Council) of Speier, April 25, 1529. This was a Roman Catholic Council for the purpose of taking action against the Turks and checking the progress of Lutherans and others who were not cooperating with the Pope. Certain Lutheran princes appeared before this Roman Catholic Diet with a formal written protest against those matters in which the Diet went contrary to the Christian faith as they understood it. This protest was signed by Elector John of Saxony, Margrave George of Brandenburg, Dukes Ernest and Francis of Braunschweig-Luneburg, Landgrave Philip of Hesse, Prince Wolfgang of Anhalt and the representatives of fourteen imperial cities. The protest was designed to protect them from the decisions of this Council. It was a defensive measure. The celebrated church historian, Philip Schaaf, makes the noteworthy statement "From this protest. and appeal, the Lutherans were called Protestants." (History of the Christian Church, Volume VII, p.692). The same facts are stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia (Volume Xll, p.495).

These Lutheran leaders, and a few Reformed, who made this appeal and protest at the famous Diet of Speier were speaking for themselves and not for Baptists, of whom they themselves said in their written statement, "All Anabaptists and rebaptized persons, male or female, of mature age, shall be judged and brought from natural life to death, by fire, or sword or otherwise, as may benefit the persons, without preceding trial by spiritual judges." The Baptists then did not share in this protest and consequently cannot bear the name "Protestant."

Cardinal Hosius says, "Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past 1,200 years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers" (Letters Apud Opera, pp.112, 113). Note carefully that this knowledgeable Catholic scholar has spoken of the vicious persecution Baptists have endured, that he clearly distinguishes them from the Reformers, and that he dates them 1,200 years before the Protestant Reformation

Christian Communalism

best system of government

decentralized communal federations

it is but the way of *koinonia*

@el pebble that's still heretical, you focus more on ideology than the religion itself, you only used religion as a means to an end, which is heretical.

>you cannot serve both god and money
>establish a political system entirely focused on materialistic goals rather than spiritual

I see a contradiction here

@Doctor Anon dude what

thats a strong claim

especially since the catholic worker movement's leader is possibly to be canonized by the Church