Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Re: Ayn Rand
Topic Started: Dec 24 2014, 09:40 AM (1,376 Views)
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Expecting someone to get off their ass and work and make something of themselves is not at odds with Christianity. Not accepting someone who settles for mediocrity is not at odds with Christianity. Lacking respect for people who can't tell the difference is not at odds with Christianity.

Telling people that a low life piece of human trash who beats his wife and kids, refuses to work, etc. is to be admired equally with someone who works hard, loves his wife and kids, treats them right, and makes something of himself IS at odds with Christianity.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
I don't believe that it's possible to love my neighbor whilst simultaneously holding him in contempt, however much I try to obfuscate the meaning of love.


It's completely possible. If you want to put it into Christian terms, your job is to love a child molester enough to hold his actions in contempt, and not glorify them, but demand better from him.


Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
God is not banning Christians from judging.


Yes, actually, that's exactly what God is doing, both in the text you cite as well as Luke 7:37-38, where he offers some elaboration on the idea:

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back."

Of course, there's this classic, well-known warning against judging others:

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." (Joh 8:7 NRS)

Jesus is quite clear about this. We are not to judge others. Period.

Other scripture supports this prohibition as well:

Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. (Rom 2:1 NRS)

Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive commendation from God. (1Co 4:5 NRS)

Do not speak evil against one another, brothers and sisters. Whoever speaks evil against another or judges another, speaks evil against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. So who, then, are you to judge your neighbor? (Jam 4:11-12 NRS)

So, from both Jesus' own mouth as well as from the witness of the remainder of the NT scriptures, we are instructed quite clearly that we are not to judge others. This is really not open to ambiguity.

Quote:
 
We are told many times and in many places in the Scripture what is right and what is wrong.


Yes, indeed we are. But you're confusing understanding right and wrong, and applying judgment against others for what you perceive to be their failure to live up to that standard - or, since most people will at least admit that they don't actually live up to the standard themselves, the problem - to be more precise, the hypocrisy, the having committed the same sin of offending God - is judging others for their failure to live up to at least the level that they think they meet it themselves. They're engaging in judgment prohibited to them, and proceeding with it based on a flawed understanding of the full depth of their own susceptibility to judgment.

But it doesn't make sense to continue that argument any further, because that really isn't a relevant point. The biggest problem here is that you're confusing your desire
a.) to judge someone based on your perception of their sin, and/or
b.) to help them somehow out of the plight that you perceive them to be in;

with that of judgmentally thinking less of a person based on attributes that have nothing to do with sin. Rand wants to judge and think less of a person if their innate level of intelligence or ability is less than someone else's, or if they're less physically attractive or a less productive cog in the goal of making more money, or greater art, or whatever. According to Rand, as summarized in the quote offered here and throughout the body of her work, these people are to be valued and loved less than those more intelligent, more attractive, more artistic, more profitable people. According to Rand, the statue-carver is worthy of more love than the balloon-maker. It's *that* claim, a core tenet of her beliefs, which is being discussed here as being - and which she flatly states herself - a completely anti-Christian ideology. This is why I find it so insane for such a large number of conservative Christians to defend her views. Her ideas go far beyond a benign call for a person to perform and achieve at their personal best, which is certainly a laudable goal, and her praise for those who manage to do so. Her ideology goes to the point of actually grading the intrinsic worth of individuals based on those kinds of criterion: what is the person's potential to exploit for the overall good of the order? History has shown that kind of calculus to be extremely dangerous, not to mention that it's completely at odds with the calculus employed by Christ.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
That's all nice and goody two shoed, but as with most all of your ramblings, you are picking and choosing to make your own personal viewpoint.

If God is "banning" people from judging, then Paul was quite mistaken when he rebuked the Corinthians for NOT judging:
"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?"

"The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment." (Psa. 37:30)

You will find that scripture lays out quite clearly what the rules are for judging others, and it begins with having the wisdom to do it properly - something that is sorely lacking among those who hide behind the "you're not supposed to judge others" argument.

But your commentary has nothing to do with the issue, anyway. There is a difference between judging someone and distinguishing between mediocrity and high standards.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
That's all nice and goody two shoed, but


But nothing. What I've detailed is Christ's teaching that we're to love one another equally, and without regard to the other person's intelligence, ability, appearance, differences, merits, gratitude, or their lovability as we may judge it; even without regard to whether they love us or hate us or even harm us in return. This is both Christ's model and Christ's teaching for his followers. You may agree or disagree with it, but that doesn't change the fact that this is the undisputed viewpoint of Christ, the founder of the faith you supposedly profess. If you want to dispute it or ridicule the teaching, take it up with him, not me.

Quote:
 
But your commentary has nothing to do with the issue, anyway. There is a difference between


Not only do I believe that you haven't actually read much of Rand, it appears that you don't even read all of the posts you react to.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Replace the word "judgement" with "discernment". In our current discussion, that's what we are talking about. Dewey knows this as a theological student, since he has the Greek version at his fingertips.

But for the rest of you, how about some definitions?

Judgement

1.
the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.


And...

Discernment

1.the ability to judge well.


Now, to be fair to Dewey, the second definition of discernment is perception in the absence of judgment with a view to obtaining spiritual direction and understanding.

But, to be also fair to me, I think all of us know how I have been using the word "judge".

And sorry, Dewey, if you have no judgement, no discernment, you aren't doing what is commanded unto you: Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

Would you like the definitions for reprove and rebuke?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly,

Quote:
 
Christ's teaching [is] that we're to love one another equally, and without regard to the other person's intelligence, ability, appearance, differences, merits, gratitude, or their lovability as we may judge it; even without regard to whether they love us or hate us or even harm us in return. This is both Christ's model and Christ's teaching for his followers. You may agree or disagree with it, but that doesn't change the fact that this is the undisputed viewpoint of Christ, the founder of the faith you supposedly profess. If you want to dispute it or ridicule the teaching, take it up with him, not me.


We are specifically charged with NOT ranking people as more or less worthy of our love. And even if we did engage in that practice, we are still specifically charged with not actually treating them with greater or lesser love based on those personal opinions or gradations. Jesus is very, very clear about this. Rand very clearly calls for the opposite. Given that, how can a Christian support Rand?
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Dewey, the simple fact is that you aren't as smart as you think you are, you aren't as educated as you think you are, and you aren't as correct as you think you are. You miss the point of this discussion so totally that frankly it's embarrassing.

Jolly gets it. He explained it to you perfectly. Yet you STILL didn't grasp things, and it's because you have convinced yourself that no one could possibly be in a position to challenge your views.

You apply a simple minded definition to the word "love", a simple minded definition to the word "judge", then insist on framing Rand's comments from a religious position, which the woman made clear was NOT what she was talking about.

Quote:
 
We are specifically charged with NOT ranking people as more or less worthy of our love.


No one has said that. You *think* someone has said that because you don't listen, and as a result, you end up digging in your heels and hearing what you want to hear.

Quote:
 
And even if we did engage in that practice, we are still specifically charged with not actually treating them with greater or lesser love based on those personal opinions or gradations.


No one has said that either. But just like the quote above it, you hear what you want to hear.

Quote:
 
Rand very clearly calls for the opposite. Given that, how can a Christian support Rand?


Quite easily, given the stone cold fact that you are f*cking WRONG, because Rand doesn't call for anything of the sort.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
No, a Christian can't whole-heartedly support Rand, but they can support some aspects as defined in her writings and books.

I think a Christian can support much of her vision of Capitalism, albeit not the total laissez faire type she advocates. That's why I'm a Republican, not a Libertarian...Sometime there has to be protection against the most egregious forms of predatory capitalism.

I also think one can support Rand's view of rugged individualism and some of her take on rational self-interest - to a point. Self interest is necessary in a capitalist society, but not if it obliterates all interest in others, particularly the least fortunate.

And as far as society goes, we of course place more value on some than on others...Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say we place more value on certain talents than others. In society, a nuclear physicist is going to have more worth than a general laborer, and as a Christian, I don't have a problem with that. Even in Jesus' day, skilled artisans were compensated better than shepherd boys...To feed his family, Joseph was skilled labor.

People become truly equal in the Sight of God and all have equal worth to Him, but that is in the spiritual realm, not the economic realm. Since God talked about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, I don't think a Biblical conflict exists there.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Jolly
Dec 26 2014, 08:34 AM
No, a Christian can't whole-heartedly support Rand, but they can support some aspects as defined in her writings and books.

I think a Christian can support much of her vision of Capitalism, albeit not the total laissez faire type she advocates. That's why I'm a Republican, not a Libertarian...Sometime there has to be protection against the most egregious forms of predatory capitalism.

I also think one can support Rand's view of rugged individualism and some of her take on rational self-interest - to a point. Self interest is necessary in a capitalist society, but not if it obliterates all interest in others, particularly the least fortunate.

And as far as society goes, we of course place more value on some than on others...Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say we place more value on certain talents than others. In society, a nuclear physicist is going to have more worth than a general laborer, and as a Christian, I don't have a problem with that. Even in Jesus' day, skilled artisans were compensated better than shepherd boys...To feed his family, Joseph was skilled labor.

People become truly equal in the Sight of God and all have equal worth to Him, but that is in the spiritual realm, not the economic realm. Since God talked about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, I don't think a Biblical conflict exists there.
Historical context.

Christianity is much, much older than our current economic and social system, and the very idea that our form of capitalism is okay is something we ourselves invented. It has no bearing on either Christian theology or European history.

"If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him."
—Exodus 22:25

"You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest."
—Deuteronomy 23:19

"If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you. Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit."
—Leviticus 25:35-37

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."
—Matthew 6:24

These are not Bible quotes taken out of context. These attitudes toward money and capitalism were ubiquitous throughout all of Europe for centuries and centuries. There's a reason that Dante, 1300 years after the death of Christ, placed the money lenders along with the sodomites in the seventh circle of Hell, below the Pagans, the wrathful and even the heretics. It wasn't just a fanciful idea that he thought up one day; his own father was a money-lender. His writing echoes Thomas Acquinas, a theological contemporary of Dante who said of money lending that "money should increase from natural goods and not from money itself." For hundreds of years, usury was thought by the Church and society to be as bad as sodomy, as it forces currency into some unnatural form of "reproduction." Now it's the central tool by which our very economy functions.

John Milton, who came hundreds of years later, and whose father was also a money-lender, had this to say in Paradise Lost:

Quote:
 
[let us] rather seek
Our own good from ourselves, and from our own
Live to ourselves, though in this vast recess,
Free, and to none accountable, preferring
Hard liberty before the easy yoke
Of servile pomp. Our greatness will appear
Then most conspicuous, when great things of small,
Useful of hurtful, prosperous of adverse
We can create, and in what place soe're
Thrive under evil, and work ease out of pain
Through labour and endurance.


Seeking your own good from yourself, engaging in personal liberty and freedom, and focusing on the great accomplishments you yourself have made through labor sounds like a conservative or libertarian wet dream, but this quote is from Mammon, greed personified by Milton, and before him Matthew and Luke. The major problem the demons have in Paradise Lost is that they do not know how to differentiate between symbols and the essence of a thing. Mammon for example cannot see that rugged individualism and personal liberty is in itself not good, but rather using that liberty and freedom to further the Will of God here on Earth. Self-absorption and blind obsession with one's own wealth and work is how you lose sight of God.

There are lessons in the Bible that we ourselves choose to ignore every single day. Our society cherry-picks what it wants from Christianity and cites Biblical precedent only when it reinforces the behaviors we agree with. The rest it ignores. In our willful ignorance, we dismiss Biblical teachings as out-dated cultural benchmarks, even though these teachings survived for a thousand years after Jesus walked the Earth in a multitude of cultures.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Out of curiosity, I Googled to see how the rest of the Interweb sees how Ayn Rand and Christianity relate to each other. Here are a few samplings:

From the Townhall: http://townhall.com/columnists/katiekieffer/2012/09/10/christianity_is_compatible_with_ayn_rand/page/full

From the Christian Post: http://www.christianpost.com/news/ayn-rands-libertarian-hero-john-galt-was-modeled-on-jesus-christian-panelist-argues-114729/

From AlterNet: http://www.alternet.org/why-christian-conservatives-love-jesus-hater-ayn-rand

From the American Values Network: http://www.americanvaluesnetwork.org/aynrandvsjesus/

From Red Letter Christians: http://www.redletterchristians.org/ayn-rand-vs-jesus-christ-fight/

(Since some one mentioned IT earlier, I also Googled for how Catholics relate to Ayn Rand)
From the Atlas Society: http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/blog/2013/03/21/francis-i-pope-poor

From the American Jesus: http://theamericanjesus.net/2013/12/06/is-it-jesus-youre-following-or-ayn-rand-thoughts-on-pope-francis-and-the-economy/

(Yes, Aqua, I know ... I read articles on the Internet!)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
I'm not going to bother reading them, not because I don't have time, but because they don't matter.

There is no surprise in the fact that you can find someone on the internet saying pretty much anything you want to find. They neither support or negate any of the opinions expressed in this thread.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I really don't get what people see in her musings. I think she was something of a nutter. Rand's take on Christmas:

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/12/ayn-rand-on-christmas.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
This thread seems to be a good example of what the logicians call ex contradictione quodlibet: The bible is contradictory and hence one can support many contradicting positions by selective quoting of the bible. One can of course try to disambiguate by superimposing some extra structure (such as: New testament overrides Old testament, or relaxing propositions by considering the historical context), but there seems to be no consensus at all about what exactly that extra structure is.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Larry discovered a way out of that trap - instead of interpreting the bible just read what it says.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
jon-nyc
Dec 26 2014, 01:48 PM
Larry discovered a way out of that trap - instead of interpreting the bible just read what it says.
:doh: - why didn't I think of this?
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
jon-nyc
Dec 26 2014, 01:48 PM
Larry discovered a way out of that trap - instead of interpreting the bible just read what it says.
The Bible has nothing to do with the point Rand was making.

But as for my "workaround"... scripture should be read in context with the whole, not cherry picked to support some preconceived agenda. When you do that, there are no contradictions at all. If you see contradictions, it's because you aren't reading it in context with the entirety.

So once again - we can continue to debate religion, or we can discuss what Ayn Rand said in the quote. But we can't do both, because one has nothing to do with the other.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Larry
Dec 26 2014, 02:05 PM
But as for my "workaround"... scripture should be read in context with the whole, not cherry picked to support some preconceived agenda. When you do that, there are no contradictions at all. If you see contradictions, it's because you aren't reading it in context with the entirety.

So once again - we can continue to debate religion, or we can discuss what Ayn Rand said in the quote. But we can't do both, because one has nothing to do with the other.
I suspect if we're going to discuss Ayn Rand, we also have to discuss her personal philosophy and view of the world in it's entirety also rather than just look at individual quotes. I don't know enough about her to do that, and I'm not reading Atlas Shrugged over the Christmas holiday for all the tea in China.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
That's true, if you want to discuss Rand in general. But this thread wasn't intended to discuss Rand in general. It was to discuss a statement made by Rand. So to stay on topic, we must stick to the quote instead of Rand in general, and not bring religion into a statement that specifically rules out any religious involvement in its meaning.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Klaus
Dec 26 2014, 01:44 PM
This thread seems to be a good example of what the logicians call ex contradictione quodlibet: The bible is contradictory and hence one can support many contradicting positions by selective quoting of the bible. One can of course try to disambiguate by superimposing some extra structure (such as: New testament overrides Old testament, or relaxing propositions by considering the historical context), but there seems to be no consensus at all about what exactly that extra structure is.
Klaus, you're showing your ignorance.

Nothing that's been quoted has been contradictory. There have been some passage that we disagree on interpretation, but that's our fault, not the Good Book's.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Larry
Dec 25 2014, 11:30 PM
You will find that scripture lays out quite clearly what the rules are for judging others, and it begins with having the wisdom to do it properly - something that is sorely lacking among those who hide behind the "you're not supposed to judge others" argument.
I would humbly suggest that an inability to decide when one has sufficient wisdom to perform any number of complex tasks is a fairly common trait amongst all types of people.

I'd go so far as to suggest it as a universal characteristic of human beings.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Klaus
Dec 26 2014, 01:44 PM
This thread seems to be a good example of what the logicians call ex contradictione quodlibet: The bible is contradictory and hence one can support many contradicting positions by selective quoting of the bible. One can of course try to disambiguate by superimposing some extra structure (such as: New testament overrides Old testament, or relaxing propositions by considering the historical context), but there seems to be no consensus at all about what exactly that extra structure is.
Much harder to selectively quote the Standard Model to support contradictory positions, eh?

Hey Klaus, can you train your Phyton stuff on Ayn Rand's writings and the Bible (say, the New International version) and generate some statistics like you for TNCR posts?

May be machine learning can discern some objective structures from all that text. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Historical context.

Christianity is much, much older than our current economic and social system, and the very idea that our form of capitalism is (etc.)


Not only does this touch on the idea of earning interest/return on investment, but much more as well. Ancient Jewish/Hebrew economic structure stipulated the forgiveness of all debts in every seventh year. And in every 50th year - the "year of jubilee" - not only were general debts to be forgiven, but slaves were to be freed, and ownership of all agricultural land was to revert to its original/ancestral ownership. In this tradition, one didn't actually buy the land, but one bought the right to a number of harvests - essentially, leasing the land for a stipulated period to not exceed fifty years. The cost of the "purchase" was prorated to how many years remained until the next year of jubilee. An interesting alternative to our modern western concepts of property rights.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Interesting. So I take it there was no inalienable right to property in Judea in those times? Did anything change under the Greeks and Romans with regard to property rights?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Renauda
Dec 26 2014, 09:11 PM
Interesting. So I take it there was no inalienable right to property in Judea in those times? Did anything change under the Greeks and Romans with regard to property rights?
It would make sense if that was the case; so much else was different.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3