Dominant Force in West Today According to Dennis Prager is Fear of Left

I wouldn't call it a "command". It's just what you must do to be saved. That's pretty much what the situation was when Jesus was around. The "middle class" is a relatively modern invention.

That's not a solution. The problem is not that we don't want to hear what you say. The problem is that what you say is wrong and needs to be corrected.

NOT everyone is called to give all that they have. Think about it. If everyone in America gave "all that they had" their kids would be unable to attend college. There would be no automobile sales...nor many other consumer goods. Nobody would have anything beyond a small social security stipend to retire on. Don't you see the obvious social ramifications? Or do you revel in your preconceived utopian dream of socialism? Zacheus the tax collector willingly gave half and was not reprimanded. The rich young ruler was one person given one specific command. it is not automatic for all of us except symbolically--that yes, we are to give up what holds us back. One cant very well help give out spare change if they have no house themselves and if they have no money.

You think about it. Jesus said it was what you must do to be saved. If you don't want to be saved, you can be as grabby as you like.The early Church did it. They didn't become poor, as in your warped version. They owned what they needed in common. Instead of twenty people owning twenty lawnmowers, all of which were idle 90 per cent of the time, they owned one lawnmower together. That's what I have. People not going hungry? Yes, I can see that. I've never called it Utopian. I have pointed out that it's what Jesus wanted. As I said, it wasn't a command; it was what he had to do to be saved. Why would the requirement for salvation be different for different people?

because people are different. My friend is in ministry to help the homeless. He is the cook at a soup kitchen in a street ministry. He is nearly homeless himself, living in one room with his older mother. But he is 40, and strong and healthy. I am 60, have Type II Diabetes, Sleep apnea, and diabetic complications. Were I in his position I likely would never have been able to have this eye operation, would be blind, and likely to lose my feet. Thus I need a place to stay. I too live in a one-bedroom apartment. Nothing fancy, but it is necessary for my survival, as is my job. I too would have the same thing. My basic point is that God (or Jesus) would never call on anyone to be homeless unless He had a specific mission for them, such as he did the Disciples. Not everyone is called to leave everything they have behind and go trotting around the country like a vagabond. Even you have the shelter of the local library in which to spend your days, and home to sleep in at night. Would you give up your home?

Christians often scoff at the idea of relative morality. Do you really want to go with a doctrine of relative salvation? I never said they were. The members of the early church believed they were called to hold what they needed in common and give the rest to the poor - i.e. they were called to embrace socialism.

Point taken. Socialism wont work though without accepting the messenger. Secular Humanism is bankrupt in regards to advancing humanity. Humanity needs a Savior.

What does the evidence show Phat?Is there any evidence any God has ever been a Savior?

I would argue that there is evidence that Jesus Christ has been and continues to be a Savior. Our next step is to identify what is expected of a Savior.

Go to the Reddest states in America and take away everyone's public schools, Social Security, and Medicare. I wonder what they will be saying about socialism after they lose it.

Evidence Phat; where's the beef?

Are you suggesting that everyone who has changed due to finding salvation was delusional? All of them? Also, have you not seen the influence of Christianity in positively effecting cultural morality? Granted we have had our Andrew Jacksons and Christian nationalism as well... I'm talking about positive changes. Surely the collective voice of changed lives is more compelling than confirmation that they all drank the kool-aid.

But you have no evidence other than your feelings and what does that actually mean?

No, but then I will say that so far I see no evidence of any behavioral changes in any of them. Also there is ZERO evidence that any of them has ever been saved. It's yet another of those totally meaningless products modern Christianity markets. There is NO evidence that anyone has ever found salvation. That one is easy Phat. I have not seen any evidence of Christianity positively effecting cultural morality! No Phat; it is not!

If you think that everyone who believed in Odin and Thor was delusional then yes, all of them. I've seen that atheists commit crimes at a lower rate than Christians. Does that count? Sure, let's just consider the positive stuff and skip the negative stuff. What is the ratio of changed lives for the better to changed lives for the worse?--Percy