|
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| King David? a communist? |
|
| |
30:21 And David came to the two hundred men, who were so faint that they could not follow David, whom also they had made to abide at the brook Besor; and they went forth to meet David, and to meet the people that were with him: and when David came near to the people, he saluted them. 30:22 Then answered all the wicked men and base fellows, of those that went with David, and said, Because they went not with us, we will not give them aught of the spoil that we have recovered, save to every man his wife and his children, that he may lead them away, and depart. 30:23 Then said David, Ye shall not do so, my brethren, with that which Jehovah hath given unto us, who hath preserved us, and delivered the troop that came against us into our hand. 30:24 And who will hearken unto you in this matter? for as his share is that goeth down to the battle, so shall his share be that tarrieth by the baggage: they shall share alike. 30:25 And it was so from that day forward, that he made it a statute and an ordinance for Israel unto this day. Communism, in the way my teachers simply describe it, is a system in which everyone is paid the same, no matter how hard they work. I am young. I probably have the wrong idea, but after reading this verse, the idea just kinda popped into my mind. I'll translate this verse to those of you who arent great ye-olden day readers and cover some other stuff from before that relates to the subject. David and his 600 troops had been sent to the city (I believe) of Ziklag by Achish. When they had finally reached Ziklag, they had found the place was attacked and burned down by the Amalekites The Amalekites had raided Ziklag and captured the women, and everyone else in it, young and old. So everyone wept. David's two wives had been captured. So, of course, David and his army pursue them. They kept following the Amalekites until they reached the Besor Ravine, where 200 men stayed behind because they were to exhausted to cross the ravine. so David and 400 of his men continued on and destroyed the Amalekites (besides 400 young men, who got away) nothing was missing. so everyone, all happy and stuff, reached the ravine and met up with the 200 stay-behinders. Some of the evil men and troublemakers said,"Because they did not go out with us, we will not share the plunder we recovered. However, each man may take his wife and children and go." David replied," No, my brothers, you must not do that with what the Lord has given us. He has protected us and handed over to us the forces that came against us. Who will listen to what tou say? the share of the man who stayed with the supplies is to be the same as that of him who went down to the battle. All will share alike." David made this a statute and ordinance for Israel from that day to this. (New International Version) so in that sense, wasn't King David a communist? I really don't know, I just want to keep an open mind. |
|
| To leave a comment or start your own blog: |
 |
or |
 |
Already a member? Login |
|
|
|
|
| I'd say you have the wrong idea, and your mind is a little too open. |
|
|
Gideon |
 |
June 19, 2007 at 1:20pm |
|
Yes, in theory that's a Communist idea. But it applies specifically to the plunder, for which, by David's way of thinking, was given freely by God and not earned by man." No, my brothers, you must not do that with what the Lord has given us..." He's talking about being greedy with a gift from God, which would be another cool teaching for another time, lol. There is no reason to believe David ran his whole Kingdom like this from one day to the next with regards to a man's normal wages.
But cool thought, lol. |
|
|
| I don't mean that to be ugly, but it is my understanding that communists do not believe in God and David did believe in God. He just believed that when God blessed his people, that all of God's people should share in that blessing. If that meant a few undeserving people recieved as well then that was ok. It is like this, I don't deserve salvation of my own accord because I never did anything to deserve it. Yet, God sent Jesus to die in my place so that I might recieve the blessing of salvation. I could not earn or buy it, so is that communisim? God forbid! It is called Grace. |
|
|
Did David do away with private property? No. Did David start a government school system? No. Did David tax inheritances? No. Did David start an income tax? No. Did David believe and impose continual revolution? No. David, then, was not a communist. |
|
|
| lol. Im getting flamed. its okay though, it was just a thought. personally, i wouldnt believe it either. I agree with Fishingsai... its called grace. |
|
|
My personal opinion on this is that David felt that those that stayed behind had a duty to protect their property, wives, and children so they shared in the spoils of war.
Communism as a practice does not allow for the pursuit of happiness (among other things). It rewards complacency and does not give anybody reward for risk. What a dull life it would be. |
|
|
Flamed? What are you talking about? I just pointed out several planks of the communist manifesto that David didn't come near to...if he came near any...reread Fish's comments. Also, see voice above. There is no duller life than that in a commie country! Look at the uniformity that always ends up occuring. In China, the only reason color has developed is that they are morphing into somewhat of a pseudo communism. True communism is drab. Those of us who were behind the iron curtain in 78 or earlier know that for sure! Read the Gulag Archipelago!!! Read To Build a Castle! |
|
|
first of all, no, YOU are not flaming me. and yes i believe that a communist life would be a dull one. I totally agree with that. |
|
|
| (I was being flamed by someone i was talking to on this subject, sorry, i should have made that clear.) |
|
|
| I know you don't really think David was a communist or anything approaching it, I am guessing you haven't really studied the communist system of govt. But hey, you took the initiative to read a passage and analyze it, and for that I applaud your efforts. That's more than a lot of people I know do with the bible. ~mike |
|
|
Great point! I have heard many also read the scriptures in Acts where the Apostles are basically kicked out of the temple and synagogues and meet in houses and they then say we must, of course, not meet in buildings anymore and only meet in homes. We must take scriptures first in their own context and then also in the whole Bible context. David, as a man after God's own heart, would also have God's heart towards material goods which is capitalistic or you could say profit oriented, at least! Scriptures are replete in profit oriented economic systems and replete with anti-communistic verses. Now, the references for this will take time to assemble as well as the parables of Christ that address the evils of envy (communist root thought)! |
|
|
| EXACTLY!!! communism was a good intention originally, but man has a way of transforming good intentions to bad things. |
|
|
| No, communism was never a good intention. Who said that. IT was rotten from the beginning with it Atheism, It's constant revolution, and it's antiBiblical economics built around envy. |
|
|
1st of all, just to make things clear to everyone, i am not a supporter of communism (just for anyone who gets the "PatVith is a communist!!!" idea)
The intention of Communism began with Marxism.(founded by Karl Marx) The root of equal pay or total equality was meant to end alienation among people. In my, young and naive view, Karl Marx just didnt want people to believe one person was better than another. all men are created equal. He wished for a true freedom (which is bad) to do whatever anybody wanted "where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each one can become accomplished in any branch he wishes..." Maybe I am not accounting for his intelligence (poor, naive young mind), but I dont think he remembered to add into his "equation", of sorts, human nature. which is evil. laziness is one of the seven deadly sins that he may not have accounted for. Okay, i probably havent done enough research, but I dont believe that Karl Marx had anything to say on religion, so I would think that Communist Atheism came from Karl Marx's quote, "religion is the opium of society." okay, so I just proved your point right? not necessarily. opium at the time WAS becoming a public health concern BUT it was also a sedative. SO that remark could have meant either: religion is a problem, we must exterminate it, or it could have meant religion is the calmer of the people, it kepps the peace. If only Karl Marx had elaborated more... And finally, (okay everyone, go ahead and kill me for this remark, *winces*) America would NEVER have gained it's independence if not for revolution. Karl Marx believed that eventually, society would wind up in communism no matter what, kind of in a social-evolution type thing, and revolution was bound to happen. Now you ask, "why am i talking about marxism, i thought we were talking about communism." mainly because Marxism is the root of communism, it IS the good intention of communism (no, i am not Marxist either.) but even that has been corrupted with a million, trillion, billion, googolplex interpretations and misrepresentations. quoted from American Marx scholar Hal Draper," there are few thinkers in modern history whose thought has been so badly misrepresented, by Marxist and Anti-Marxists alike." Again, I think that if Marx hadnt been as vague, communism MIGHT have not become as bad as communism is today. |
|
|
| WOAH!!! that could have be like, a middle school-ish history essay! |
|
|
| save for the need of editing, etc, etc, etc |
|
|
| now time for a scathing remark such as, "If this was an essay, and I were your teacher, I'd give you an F!" |
|
|
Avy |
|
June 22, 2007 at 3:27pm |
|
If this was an essay, and I were your teacher, I'd give you an F! =P
Just messing with you Pat. I love that you're reading through the Bible and paying eough attention to it and Nofer/Ruiz to notice that. If I WERE your teacher, I'd give you an A. =P |
|
|
The center of Marxism (Marx was extremely lazy as mentioned by the way, he depended totally on his wealthy friend Engels) is envy. Bringing people down to a low miserable level is the essence of marxism/communism as illustrated by so well by the former Soviet Union and every communist system since and on into the future. It is totally parasitic as was Karl Marx himself. The American War for Independence was not a revolution as historians have rewritten history but an attempt for English citizens to get their just representation in the colonies. They did all that was possible to appeal to the King, etc. but it became necessary to dissolve the bands of the English government when the English government refused to keep the law by treating the colonists as enemies and foreigners rather than as the Bristish citizens that they were. In essence, the revolutionary was King George III of England and the Parliament, my friend. |
|
|
| This is a fascinating topic, Pat. Thanks for bringing it up! Recon, you definitely know your history/philosophy. ~mike |
|
|
| I agree with Mike. thanks for teaching me some new stuff (really, if it hadnt been for you, I probably would never have researched this stuff. |
|
|
Mike, I had to be sharp recently I just finished a philosophy course taught by a feminist marxist AND we had to share our thoughts. I thought I'd die the first night when I found out we had to keep a journal of our thoughts. How was I to share my thoughts (no one could be more anti-marxist than I) and still get the grade. I prayed a lot and God blessed me and I actually ended up enjoying the course. I actually agreed with many of the ideas in her book but had a totally different reason for coming to the conclusions And NO the problems in EuroWestern culture are not because of Males or Maleness. |
|
|
| by the way, the literal meaning of revolution is an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed, so in that sense, the war for independence was a revolution. |
|
|
JJ |
|
June 22, 2007 at 8:53pm |
|
Pat, Are you sure you are 13? I am impressed by your desire to learn. BTW I agree with you, Communism did have good intentions and it wasn't as bad of a life as some people think. I know this because I have spent time on former communist countries and much of what we read about communism is propaganda. Do I like or agree with communism? NO, I Love America and our way of doing business. But back to your point about David. I don't think he was a communist either, but if there was ever a time in Israel's history that would have been close to communism, the reign of David would have probably been it. Not because of forced redistribution of welath, but because of a willing redistribution of wealth by the people (not the government) to help those in need. These years were in my estimation the "good years" for Israel. Just a thought. Cheers JJ |
|
|
The early Christian Church was communist (in that things, such as property and money) were held in common and used by the people in the COMMUNity. I don't know how many here have lived in a monastary, but they follow pretty much the same principle. The monks don't own anything, and it is only sharing from a common pool that they are able to exist. As the reponses to the original post has shown, when most people hear the term communism they automatically assume Marxism. Which is a bit of a misnomer, while Marx is probably the most famous theorist of its principles, the concept in both theory as well as praxis, in one form or another, was around for quite a long time before Marx.
Also to use China or the USSR as examples of failed communist (really Marxist) states, I think it should be pointed out that neither of them really fit the Marxist model for a true communist state. According to Marx ( I believe in Das Kapital, but I could be wrong) the true communist (or socialist) state would arise out of an industriualist democracy, taking over the cogs of capitalism for the betterment of the proletariat. Both China and Russia were absolute monarchies with agrarian-based economies. Hardly the model Marx would have approved of. |
|
|
More Posts from Insignificant B...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subscribe to this blog
back to top
