Women are not the same as men, no matter what NWO military chiefs say. Made different. Men are created to look and initiate and woo, women created to attract, select, and sometimes invite. Trump therefore sounds genuine. Can't expect Christian behavior from him, but he looks to be a MUCH better protector of women and Christians in the U. S. and abroad than any of the candidates he won against and certainly both Dems.including Cruz the Wall Street-Fed-CFR mob.

Prenatal infanticide the "lesser of two evils"???

+11

As if the fed courts were sane????
God is not mocked. America's sins blowing back...

Pooling material resources in a "voluntary communism" only worked for what is called "the Early Church", as laid out in the scripture, Acts 2:42-45 and Acts 4.

Eleanor Roosevelt was an almost outed Communist and engineer of a number of such experimental "voluntary communes" in the Southwest, and they all flopped, word has it, miserably.

The Pilgrims tried it their first year in the new continent, and got very little harvest. One of the first returns in a search from the History Channel on this group merely mentions "harsh conditions".

The first year everyone plowed, sewed and reaped together, and they got a poor crop. For the second year, Governor Bradford and presumably advisers divided the land into plots, with each family responsible for its own crops. The result was a tremendous bounty with enough to spare and share.

Christian prophet predicted this in 1973, this is only the beginning. In his dream, he saw Europe as a bride in a marriage ceremony with groom Russia.

That's called "government". People would immediately stop doing business with him, offended relatives would have great incentive to collect support for a counter-attack. The insurance company that provided the blowback against Mr. (Bad) Rich Guy might double their business overnight, for both security and moral reasons.

In a society with strong respect for "Thou shalt not steal", "thou shalt not kill", such a "rich man" would soon meet his comeuppance with other players. "No more Mr. Rich Guy".

During the book of Judges the only law they had were the laws of Moses. Several times there were foreign bad guys, kings, that sent armed soldiers to forcefully collect "tribute" from the agrarian Israelite farmers who were settled in their lands. One Philistine king after a conquest imposed "sword control" on them: Israelite blacksmiths were illegal. One of the farmers, Mr. Anybody, would hear a call from God to organize an army to expel the oppressors. Mission accomplished, during that time, after victory they would abandon arms and go back to the farms.

During that time, neighbors or two parties in dispute would bring their matter to a person with a reputation for fairness. Often that was the guy who led the armies, but it was really anybody who earned it.

The situation devolved finally into a monarchy with two developments in social traditions.

One, apparently, the tradition developed to regard the office of judgeship as something of an inherited office. Maybe it developed over two or three generations in which the offspring showed the same sense of justice and truth as the ancestor. I say this because Samuel became judge because the people had rejected the sons of Eli who took bribes in their decision to tilt to one or the other, they got a corrupt reputation. This implies that they had expected better of the next generation.

The expectation of hereditary "judgeship" was a laziness on the part of the people. They should have looked around for someone more fitting. Or someone(s). The rabbis were also expected to fill this role. But in the book of Judges they had left off obeying the (government-free) law of the land several times, and that was when they were weak enough to conquer.

Two. When Samuel began reaching his old age, the people noted that his sons were also corrupt. The people were in another stage where they were looking too much at the nations surrounding them and getting covetous for what they saw as "glory". Or something. So they sent the elders to Samuel demanding he select out a king for them. To fight their battles and stuff.

Samuel warned them. A king is going to extort outrageous taxes from your farms. Forget thinking you'll get away with fudging on your tithe! A king will also take your sons to fight his wars (translation: there will be more wars, because he can). A king will also take your daughters to his palaces bake him some nice delicacies. You're going to be very sorry you did this.

Sure enough, it started off with Saul, the first one. Samuel prayed a little harder for the retry, and let God have more say on the second one, David.

Sure enough, then Solomon, not content with the wisdom and riches God gave him, proved out Samuel's warning. He started coveting the princesses that admiring heathen pushed in front of him, took more wives and concubines than the could afford, started listening to these women who worshiped false gods and built temples to their false gods. One of them was Molech, whose priests were documented earlier and later as doing sacrifice of babies to a burning pile inside a giant idol. He did more than he could afford so he just raised taxes.

When he died the people begged for relief from the burdensome taxation. The son listened to the wrong (young) advisers and flippantly told him he'd make it worse for them. So the northern ten tribes all split off from the kingdom. The kings were terrible, most of them.

History does not hide Declan in Ireland, who did not spread the word all that much. The why is lost to history, but Patrick obviously came back to the island with a Christ-like love for the people and won almost every one to Jesus Christ (not a church organization) and the result was a transformation for the Irish that reverberated back to Britain and the continent, and through the ages.

Just before the verse that has the only claim of the Papacy to leadership succession, Christ had asked Peter who did he think he was. Peter answered "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." That's when Jesus told him that God had revealed that to him, and with reference to the name of Peter, said "Upon this rock I will build my church". The rock of Jesus being "Christ, the Son of the living God".

Peter was sifting sand during those days, he was not a "rock". David said the Lord was "the rock of my salvation". Not Peter. Peter knew that there is "only once intercessor between God and man, the man Christ Jesus".

Jesus said "By their fruits ye shall know them".

<div class="idc-message" id="idc-comment-msg-div-848598336"><a class="idc-close" title="Click to Close Message" href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(848598336)"><span>Close Message</span> Comment posted. <p class="idc-nomargin"><a class="idc-share-facebook" target="_new" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.org%2Fpreview%2F6790%2FEarly-Catholic-Social-Teaching-The-State-as-Robber%23IDComment848547315#IDComment848598336&t=I%20just%20commented%20on%20Early%20Catholic%20Social%20Teaching%3A%20The%20State%20as%20Robber%20-%20Bryan%20Cheang%20-%20Mises%20Daily" style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="idc-share-inner"><span>Share on Facebook</span></span> or <a href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(848598336)">Close MessageIt does not clarify why the fish. Maybe they just didn't have it at the time, Jesus did not keep more than he needed day to day I don't think. They had their "treasury", but he lived "Take no thought for the morrow", too, teaching them how to spread the Gospel by faith (Luke 10, Matthew 10).

They weren't "evading" the tax collector, nor did they "make him think they payed him". They got the tribute and they paid the guy. Period. That's what it says and it's the Bible, right? ;)