Now I know you are trying to define charity as the giving of goods or services, but there is so much more to it. As a matter of a fact, in the above scriptures, it’s actually the Greek word agape. Which means, of all things, Love.

As for citing, feel free not to cite every fact you post. If everyone did that posts would become needlessly long. But if someone asks for a cite you should provide it or expect your argument to be considered invalid

Plus I really like your cartoon!

In short, the Wikipedia article includes not only Marxist communism, but other types of communism as well. Some of these are motivated by apolitical concerns, and many of them are Christian in nature. Your notion that the word “communism” must be limited to Marxist communism is not reflected in the Wikipedia article you mentioned, just as it is not reflected in dictionary definitions of the word. My definition of communism, on the other hand, is reflected in both, and that is why I feel confident that my definition reflects common usage of the term.

As for the car comparison, I agree that Ford cars and Chevy cars have different manufacturers, and that this distinction means that a Ford can never be a Chevy. By the same token, early Christian communism and Marxist communism have two distinct inspirations, and so the early Christian church will never qualify as Marxists. But a Taurus and a Corvette are both cars, because they both share the characteristics common to cars. Likewise, early Christian communism and Marxist communism are both forms of communism, because they both share the characteristics common to communism. Again, it’s important to distinguish between defining characteristics and incidental characteristics. You’ll have a much easier following my argument once you start doing that.

Having said that, you may be interested to know that in the 2009 edition of the Random House dictionary, the first definition of “communism” is “a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.” By that particular definition, the early church were indeed communists, as they practiced a system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common (“All the believers were together and had everything in common”) and ascribed ownership to the community as a whole (“No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.”)

At the beginning of any given chapter in the bible there are notes concerning the it’s context: That book was not to be considered as a history of what was done by all the Apostles, who were dispersed into different nations. In chapter 10 you will read of Cornelius a religious man, and fearing God with all of his house, who gave much alms; or Simon the tanner in whose house Peter lodged.

My point was simply this: Your refusal to acknowledge that the early Christian church practiced a form of communism is very much like denying that a Corvette is a car. As you yourself said, both of these are types of cars; they simply have different manufacturers. Well, the same is true of communism. Both Marxist communism and early Christian communism are both types of communism, despite having different “manufacturers.”

We can take the metaphor further. How do we know that the Taurus and the Corvette are both cars? Because if we examine them, we’ll find that they both have the defining characteristics of cars– wheels, engines, headlights, batteries, etc. Similarly, we know that both of these systems were types of communism because they both have the defining characteristics of communism– no private property, all wealth held by the community and distributed according to need.

As for your claim that I am “redefining words”, this is incorrect. My definition of communism is a pretty common one. It accords well with both the scholarly consensus found in dictionaries, and the “man on the street” view reflected in sites like Wikipedia. Besides, why would I need to redefine the word? I didn’t raise the issue of communism, and I’m not a communist myself, so what would be the point?

Again, I don’t know why this is bugging you so badly. I’m not asking you to believe that the early Christians were Marxists. I’m not asking you to reject Christianity because of the early church’s communism. I’m simply pointing out an obvious similarity, and asking you to admit that eagles are birds and Corvettes are cars.

Regarding the early church, no, I don’t believe they were Catholic. The Catholic church came later. The early church was actually a highly diverse community of loosely connected groups during those first few centuries. Some Christian groups were heavily Jewish in flavor, others had strong gnostic leanings. Doctrines were in flux; even basic questions like the divinity of Jesus were unsettled. This diversity was a reflection of Christianity’s Jewish origins, as the Judaism of the time was also a highly diverse group of opposing factions and “denominations.” So no, the early Christian church wasn’t Catholic. Indeed, by the standards of modern orthodoxy, much of the early Christian church wasn’t even Christian.

Most standard html-tags work fine here.

Maxwell: Rush, Rush, Rush, Rush. :p (a tip of the hat to n00bs for :p)

Also interesting, they now have graphic novels of Shakespeare, with original dialogue. My son’s class is studying MacBeth.

As for “inferring” commonalities, I’m not *inferring* anything. The commonalities are *there*, and can be easily seen by anybody who doesn’t have an ax to grind. Nor have I ever stated that Marxist communism and early Christian communism are the same– indeed, I’ve pointed out some critical differences between the two. But the many differences between the two does not negate the fact that they nonetheless have some central features in common. There are many differences between ducks and eagles, but they’re still both birds.

As far as the notion that socialist societies necessarily enslave their subjects, this is also incorrect, or at least misleading. In socialist countries that are heavily influenced by Marxist thought (Cuba, for instance, or North Korea), sure, things are pretty grim. But many countries in Western Europe have adopted a more moderate form of socialism, one informed not by theories of class struggle, but philosophies emphasizing freedom, justice, and the open society. You don’t get shot for trying to leave these countries.

Your comment that “Church law” (which is a misnomer, as there have been many different churches with varying degrees of political power in the last 2,000 years) forbade forced conversion is incorrect. The Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions, for instance, were joint projects of the Catholic Church and the governments of Spain and Portugal. Jews and Muslims were given a “choice”– convert to Christianity, or leave the country with nothing but (literally) what they could carry. Curious how you forgot to mention that when you stated that “those who disagreed with Catholicism were not prevented from leaving.”

And being a Christian didn’t necessarily make you safe– you could still be persecuted if you were the wrong *kind* of Christian. Indeed, many victims of the Inquisitions were either recent converts suspected of being insincere, or Christians whose viewpoints were considered heretical– even though their “heresies” often had a biblical basis! You stated, “But what was the most common punishment of the Inquisition? Penance and excommunication.” You neglected to mentioned that these convictions were achieved by torturing victims until they confessed to the crime. So that “mild” punishment only came only after enduring hours or even days of excruciating agony. And of course, not everybody was lucky enough to “only” be tortured– many were later put to death, often by burning at the stake. Yeah, that’s a real nice voluntary system they had.

Finally, your statement that “only some communities [within the primitive church] existed like that” is inconsistent with Acts 2:44 and 4:32, which specifically states that *all* the believers held their property in common, not merely some isolated communities.