Thanksgiving happened only after Pilgrims abandoned socialism
The Pilgrims, of course, were the first to celebrate Thanksgiving, even though the name, the holiday designation, the traditions, parades and football games were unseen in the far distant future at the time.
But they only could celebrate after they abandoned socialism â€“ the socio-political-economic system that many of the Democrats running for their party's nomination for president in 2020 now espouse.
It's according to a report from the Foundation for Economic Education.
The "first few years of the settlement [after the 1620 landing of the Mayflower and the founding of the Plymouth colony) were fraught with hardship and hunger," FEE reported....
We gathered with some of the poor people from the community at a church we attend yesterday. Had the opportunity to discuss the Gospel with one of the attendees. We didn't hold a worship service. We just ministered and served instead.
Douglas Fir wrote: In all the first celebrations of Thanksgiving, religion played a central part. Today, that is not so big a deal. Instead, the secular media calls it "Turkey Day" and emphasizes the stores opening on the big day. A friend told me he saw a huge line of people outside of one store that opened at 2pm yesterday. Other stores opened at 5pm. Another one opened late today...at 8am, and he told me that he went early to get in line, and there was no one there. The manager came out to invite him in, and he protested, saying it wasn't 8am (as if this were a game being played), but the manager insisted. There were more worker-bees in the store than customers, which is usually the case. I didn't see any churches having services yesterday, did you?
why wouldn't you want families to be able to be able to get the meal cooked and enjoy loved ones over. Not everybody would be willing to attend church but you can usually get them together for family&friend time at a Thanksgiving dinner. You don't think that's important? Are you saying people can only be thankful if they gather at a church service? Just wondering, thanks.
Jim Lincoln wrote: As time pointed out, the Pilgrims weren't Christian enough to implement a New Testament type Church Acts 4:32 everything in common.
Jim has it all mixed up again. The account in Acts shows Christian love and what we term free market capitalism. Remember John asked if you see a brother in need and don't help him, how dewlls the love of God in you and James reminds us that simply saying be warmed and fillied isn't going to cut it.
According to Acts 2 we have several of the new disciptes (remember we are talking about 3000 converts and even more later) continued daily learning and fellowshipping with the Apostles. This means that several thousand people who normally would have gone home after Pentecost were still around. These people had to be cared for. The people who OWNED (that would be capitalism) property sold their possessions to meet this need. (no government compelled them to do so)
We had a couple who wanted to look good so they lied about their contribution. Note Peter said "while it remained WAS IT NOT THY OWN?" he even asked the same question about the money acknowleging "was in not IN THINE OWN POWER". None of that suggests socialism but what we term free market capitalism.
In all the first celebrations of Thanksgiving, religion played a central part. Today, that is not so big a deal. Instead, the secular media calls it "Turkey Day" and emphasizes the stores opening on the big day. A friend told me he saw a huge line of people outside of one store that opened at 2pm yesterday. Other stores opened at 5pm. Another one opened late today...at 8am, and he told me that he went early to get in line, and there was no one there. The manager came out to invite him in, and he protested, saying it wasn't 8am (as if this were a game being played), but the manager insisted. There were more worker-bees in the store than customers, which is usually the case. I didn't see any churches having services yesterday, did you?
What kind of people are in favor of universal healthcare, Jim? Two kinds, actually. (1) There are indolent underachievers who, rather than working as hard as necessary to meet their needs and the needs of their family, would rather pick the pockets of people who ARE willing to work hard. In other words, Jim, GREEDY people. (2) There are slithering politicians who will say and do anything to get elected again and again because the longer they are in office, the wealthier they become. In other words, even GREEDIER people. Greed is the sole motivation for universal healthcare, and itâ€™s the only motivation for socialism.
Jim Lincoln wrote: As time pointed out, the Pilgrims weren't Christian enough to implement a New Testament type Church even if that's what they vocally said Acts 4:32 Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. ---ESV
Interesting how you fail to see your own hypocrisy. If you actually believed what you quoted from scripture, you'd be promoting Medi-share, a Christian based healthcare program, instead of federal government universal healthcare. Perhaps the reason you don't is because Medi-share doesn't cover abortions.
and many of the Puritans, in the meantime, steeped themsleves in experiential, existential, mystical 'Christianity' - constantly looking to themselves for evidences of moral improvement and subjective spiritual experiences for assurance of salvation. And many of the puritans died in terror on their deathbeds - void of hope, having never believed the true gospel. Years later, however, Pumetacom's surviving brother met a man in the woods who him told him about the only true gospel of God's free and sovereign grace in the Lord Jesus Christ. Pumetacom's brother rejoiced in this Good News, believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - and burned his wooden idols and repented of his efforts to please his gods. He remained friends and brothers with that man until his dying day; rumor has it that they began the first true gospel church in America shortly thereafter - right outside the main/broad road in Plymouth - on a street called Strait."
Jim, you can try that old trick of stating the Puritans and their forebearers failed in their religious experiments in governance, but you too shall fail, sir, as your forebearers in Hawthorn and company failed before you. If you cannot rewrite history, then tarnish the reporter.
You would do well to actually read American history from reliable sources. But when you do, you will find the same old pattern that is found in Scripture. One generation has faith. The next does not. But neither are universal statements. The Lord preserved to Himself a remnant, even in New England. Go and look yourself. They are there. I have, myself, met some of them.
The only place one finds Marx or his failed concepts of economics and social interactions is as a footstool under Jesus's feet. Marx with all he stood for is an enemy of the Lord, deluding many into believing, with Plato, that socialism removes unwanted competition and suffering. This utopia will come, as you rightly stated Jim, once Christ's visible rule arrives.
It would have been better if the news story author(s) would have quoted a more accurate source in this case. Socialism is a failed experiment that too many wish to reattempt. It has proven itself to be such over and over.
As for Annias and Saphira, as the Apostle Peter's recorded discourse indicates, they were not struck down by the Lord for holding back a portion of their sale, but for lying about it. The gift was theirs to give, not of the church to demand as if the Lord commanded it. Their sin was to state that it was the whole price obtained in the sale rather than some portion thereof. This shows a few things:
1. Lying to the Lord is a serious offense, as He doesn't already know he truth. 2. Lying to our brother- or sister-in-Christ is an equal offense, seeing as one just did that to one of the least of these My brethern. 3. God loves a cheerful giver and does not compell us to pay Him a tax or redistribute wealth in His name. He does call us to worship Him in a sacrificial manner, which would include the concept of the tithe.
The following article is informative about the decline of Puritanism into Unitarianism. I don't know if I found any better Puritans did pay attention to greed and tried to moderate it in their communities -- but eventually lost. This Unitarian article describes how greed eventually destroyed the Puritan community. The congregational structure of their churches probably didn't help either.
Ah, QC, blaming me for what tea party types actually suffer âť—
https://tinyurl.com/jkhsosd (The Unitarian Controversy and Its Puritan Roots)
Puritanism was a great flop.
https://tinyurl.com/y576t94tÂ (Should Christians try to force the kingdom on others?)
https://tinyurl.com/jko49r6Â (Christians and Politics, Part 3)
Jim, it is evident that you understand God's word only through the lenses of your politics. In analysis, we call that "bias." It flows from the deepest part of you.
You have misinterpreted those passages from Acts to establish a socialist church, which did not exist nor was one encouraged by the Apostles. In those days, many of the initial converts to Christ were from out of town or even the region. They were caught up in a new thing that existed only in Jerusalem at that time so far as Acts tells us. Being travelers and away from their normal livelihoods, they remained beyond their ability to sustain themselves. Local Christians sold off some of their holdings to help sustain these new brothers- and sisters-in-Christ. You have mistaken charity their charity for socialism.
Jim Lincoln wrote: excerpt from, "the miracle of Squanto path to Plymouth"đź‘Ť https://tinyurl.com/tqxbozd Yes, greed works âť—
One should ask Ananias and Sapphira though đź‘Ž ---
If greed worked, socialism would work, for human nature dictates the least possible will be done if there is no difference in earnings. Why work hard when there is no more benefit than if you work little? Instead, be greedy, lay back and let someone else carry your load. In other words, socialist greed is taking more than what is yours. The biblical definition of greed entails the desire to take that which is not rightfully ours. Pilgrim communalism didn't work because it made the lazy more lazy, and the motivated less motivated.
As time pointed out, the Pilgrims weren't Christian enough to implement a New Testament type Church even if that's what they vocally said
Acts 4:32 Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. ---ESV
JFB Bible commentary wrote: 31-37. place was shakenâ€”glorious token of the commotion which the Gospel was to make (Ac 17:6; compareÂ Ac 16:26), and the overthrow of all opposing powers in which this was to issue. Â Â Â Â they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and spake,Â &c.â€”The Spirit rested upon the entire community, first, in the very way they had asked, so that they "spake the word with boldness" (Acts 4:29Â Acts 4:31); next, in melting down all selfishness, and absorbing even the feeling of individuality in an intense and glowing realization of Christian unity. The community of goods was but an outward expression of this, and natural in such circumstances.
I really don't know if it is possible to have a functioning first century Christian Church until Christ returns due to the nature of the Beastie - man.
However, I'm not going to make excuses for everyone's tendency towards greed.
The point, James, is that hard work (not greed) of which directly benefits oneself or one's own family is a significant driver to do more and achieve more. The all-things-in-common or socialist alternative wound up bringing forth the minimum required and that with much threatening.
No one, with any sense, disputes Squanto's arrival and assistance as anything not Providential. But even Squanto's help, which arrived in 1621 & resulted in their first harvet of maize, did not solve the problems caused ongoing socialist experiment until it was abandoned in 1623. Read the real account, Jim, not the commentator and you'll see for yourself. Warning...you'll have to read very old English, not the modern typeset and spelling of the KJV or even my Geneva.
Eric Metaxas wrote: .... No one disputes that Squantoâ€™s advent among the Pilgrims changed everything, making it possible for them to stay and thrive. Squanto even helped broker a peace with the local tribes, one that lasted 50 years, a staggering accomplishment considering the troubles settlers would face later.
So the question is: Can all of this have been sheer happenstance, as most versions of the story would have us believe? The Pilgrims hardly thought so. To them, Squanto was a living answer to their tearful prayers, an outrageous miracle of God. Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford declared in his journal that Squanto â€śbecame a special instrument sent of Godâ€ť who didnâ€™t leave them â€śtill he died.â€ť
Indeed, when Squanto died from a mysterious disease in 1622, Bradford wrote that he wanted â€śthe Governor to pray for him, that he might go to the Englishmenâ€™s God in heaven.â€ť And Squanto bequeathed his possessions to the Pilgrims â€śas remembrances of his love.â€ť ...
excerpt from, "the miracle of Squanto path to Plymouth"đź‘Ť