Commentary on the Mark of the Beast (Rev 13:18)

This is an excerpt from the notes of a commentary I am currently working on concerning the entire Apocalypse of St. John.

"This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number, its number is six hundred and sixty-six." Rev. 13:18 (NRSV)

In biblical allegory the Beast represents corrupt earthly empires, systemic greed, and human arrogance that set itself up against God. The primary understanding concerning the allegorical method are as follows:

1. Total devotion of the actions and thoughts

In this book the mark is placed on either the hand or the forehead, the forehead represents your mind, intellect, beliefs, and philosophy. Receiving the mark on your forehead represents the person giving their mind, intellect, beliefs and philosophy over to the corrupt materialistic system. Every thought is based in this corrupt system. The right hand represents your labor and actions. Receiving the mark on the right hand represents your laboring for this immoral and unethical system.

2. A spiritual parody of Gods seal

In scripture, God also places a symbolic seal or mark on the foreheads of His faithful followers ( Rev. 7:3 and Ez. 9:4) This is very similar to Deuteronomy 6:8 in which God commands believers to bind His laws "as a sign on your hand" and "between your eyes".

The mark of the beast is a counterfeit to Gods seal and it symbolizes a soul that has chosen to internalize the values of the world rather than the values of Christ.

3. Complicity with exploitative systems

Because scripture states that nobody can buy or sell without the mark of the beast we look at this as economic and social conformity. The mark represents the ethical compromises a person makes just to achieve comfort, wealth, or status. It symbolizes participating in a corrupt status quo, such as an economic system driven wholly on exploitation where a person determines that financial survival or luxury is more important than moral integrity, such as feeding the poor or housing the homeless or ensuring everyone has access to clean water and food or even healthcare. 

4. Gematria and the "imperfect" human standard

In ancient biblical numerology the number 7 stands as divine perfection, completion, and the Sabbath rest. The number 6, however, falls short of perfection. Therefore 6 three times symbolizes a system or person completely trapped in a states of fallenness and imperfection. Striving for self-glorification and failing to reach spiritual maturity. It represents worshipping humanity and human technology instead of the creator.

***this is not the finalized form of the text, this is pulled from my notes on the commentary I am currently working on. The final form may be very different to what is posted above.

ⲓⲱ̅

ይህ አሁን እየሰራሁበት ካለው እና መላውን የቅዱስ ዮሐንስ ራዕይን ከሚያብራራው የትcommentary (የትንታኔ) ማስታወሻ የተወሰደ ነው።

«ጥበብ በዚህ አለ፤ አእምሮ ያለው የአውሬውን ቁጥር ይቁጠረው፤ ቁጥሩ የሰው ቁጥር ነውና፥ ቁጥሩም ስድስት መቶ ስድሳ ስድስት ነው።» ራዕይ 13:18

በመጽሐፍ ቅዱሳዊ ምሳሌያዊ አነጋገር (allegory)፥ አውሬው ሙስና የተሞላባቸውን ምድራዊ መንግስታትን፣ ስር የሰደደ ስግብግብነትን እና ራሱን በእግዚአብሔር ላይ ከፍ የሚያደርገውን የሰው ልጅ ትዕቢት ይወክላል። ይህንን ምሳሌያዊ ዘዴ ለመረዳት ዋና ዋናዎቹ ነጥቦች የሚከተሉት ናቸው፦

1. የተግባር እና የሃሳብ ሙሉ ታማኝነት (ምርኮኝነት)
   በዚህ መጽሐፍ ውስጥ ምልክቱ በልጁ እጅ ወይም ግንባር ላይ ይደረጋል፤ ግንባር አእምሮን፣ እውቀትን፣ እምነትን እና ፍልስፍናን ይወክላል። ምልክቱን በግንባር ላይ መቀበል ማለት አንድ ሰው አእምሮውን፣ እውቀቱን፣ እምነቱን እና ፍልስፍናውን ለዚህ በሙስና ለተበላሸው ቁሳዊ ስርዓት አሳልፎ መስጠቱን ያሳያል። እያንዳንዱ ሃሳብ በዚህ ብልሹ ስርዓት ላይ የተመሰረተ ይሆናል። ቀኝ እጅ ደግሞ ድካምንና ተግባርን ይወክላል። ምልክቱን በቀኝ እጅ ላይ መቀበል ለዚህ ስነ-ምግባር የጎደለውና ብልሹ ለሆነው ስርዓት መስራትንና መደከምን ያሳያል።
2. የእግዚአብሔር ማኅተም መንፈሳዊ መሳለቂያ (ማስመስያ)
   በቅዱሳት መጻሕፍት ውስጥ፥ እግዚአብሔር በታማኝ ተከታዮቹ ግንባር ላይ ምሳሌያዊ ማኅተም ወይም ምልክት ያደርጋል (ራዕይ 7:3 እና ሕዝቅኤል 9:4)። ይህ እግዚአብሔር አማኞች ሕጎቹን «በእጅህ ላይ ምልክት አድርገህ እሰራቸው» እና «በዓይኖችህም መካከል ይሁኑ» ብሎ ካዘዘበት ከዘዳግም 6:8 ጋር በጣም ተመሳሳይ ነው።
   የአውሬው ምልክት የእግዚአብሔር ማኅተም የሐሰት ቅጂ (ማስመስያ) ሲሆን፥ ይህም ከክርስቶስ እሴቶች ይልቅ የዚህን ዓለም እሴቶች በውስጡ ለመቅረጽ የመረጠውን ነፍስ ያመለክታል።
3. ከሌላው ወገን ብዝበዛ ጋር የሚተባበሩ ስርዓቶች ተባባሪ መሆን
   ቅዱሳት መጻሕፍት ያለ አውሬው ምልክት ማንም ሊገዛ ወይም ሊሸጥ እንደማይችል ስለሚገልጹ፥ ይህንን በኢኮኖሚያዊ እና ማኅበራዊ ህይወት ውስጥ ካለው ተገዢነት (ተስማሚነት) አንጻር እንመለከተዋለን። ምልክቱ አንድ ሰው ምቾትን፣ ሀብትን ወይም ማዕረግን ለማግኘት ብቻ የሚያደርገውን የስነ-ምግባር ስምምነት (ማሽቆልቆል) ያሳያል። ይህም ሙሉ በሙሉ በብዝበዛ ላይ የተመሰረተ የኢኮኖሚ ስርዓትን የመሰለ ብልሹ አሰራር ውስጥ መሳተፍን ያመለክታል፤ በዚህም አንድ ሰው የገንዘብ ህልውና ወይም የቅንጦት ኑሮ ከስነ-ምግባር ታማኝነት—ለምሳሌ ድሆችን ከመመገብ፣ ቤት ለሌላቸው መጠለያ ከመስጠት፣ ወይም ሁሉም ሰው ንጹህ ውሃ፣ ምግብ እና የጤና አገልግሎት ማግኘቱን ከማረጋገጥ—የበለጠ አስፈላጊ እንደሆነ ይወስናል።
4. የቁጥሮች ምሥጢር (Gematria) እና የሰው ልጅ «ያልተሟላ» መመዘኛ
   በጥንታዊ የመጽሐፍ ቅዱስ ኑሜሮሎጂ (numerology) ውስጥ ቁጥር 7 መለኮታዊ ፍጽምናን፣ መሟላትን እና የሰንበትን እረፍት ያመለክታል። ቁጥር 6 ግን ከፍጽምና ጎድሎ የሚቀር ነው። ስለዚህ 6 ሶስት ጊዜ መደጋገሙ ሙሉ በሙሉ በውድቀት እና ባልተሟላ ሁኔታ ውስጥ የተጠመደን ስርዓት ወይም ሰውን ያመለክታል። ይህም ለራስ ክብርን መሻትን እና መንፈሳዊ ብስለት ላይ አለመድረስን ያሳያል። ከፈጣሪ ይልቅ ሰውን እና የሰውን ቴክኖሎጂ ማምለክን ይወክላል።

***ይህ የጽሑፉ የመጨረሻ ቅርጽ አይደለም፤ በአሁኑ ጊዜ እየሰራሁበት ካለው የcommentary ማስታወሻዎቼ ላይ የተወሰደ ነው። የመጨረሻው ቅርጽ እዚህ ከተለጠፈው በጣም የተለየ ሊሆን ይችላል።

Transactional nature of capitalism leads to mistrust and delusion, a hypothesis

 There are countless shows and podcasts seeking to understand why people delve into delusion and or the general mistrust of anyone who has any expertise in virtually anything. I have not been able to look at the literature on the psychology of this and not being an expert myself, I am not guaranteed to understand any peer reviewed paper on the subject. I want to make that known that I am not an expert, just a lay person hypothesizing about something that I have long pondered. Why are there so many people mistrustful of, say, medical experts? Those same people will take advice from a random person with absolutely no expertise speaking on a subject they are not qualified to speak on over the internet, but mistrust the people who have spent their lifetime dedicated to said subject. Why are people generally distrustful of people? 

Capitalism reduces everything to a transaction. You only do something for someone because you get something from it, generally money or something of value. This means that in every interaction every person in the back of their mind, be it consciously or unconsciously, think "What does this person want?" or perhaps "What are they seeking to gain from this interaction?" Helping someone or doing something for someone is meant to be what it is, altruistic without the intention of receiving anything in return. But capitalism says "Don't do anything for free." Therefore as capitalism speeds towards fascism the transactional nature of every encounter ramps up. Every call could be a scammer, every incident could be a false flag, etc. In my hypothesis I believe that these minor encounters lead us to doubt the intentions of more major encounters with powerful corporations, which is not unwarranted necessarily, or encounters with experts who may have an ulterior motives. Why would any expert just give us information for free? It could not possibly be because they care about what they do and they care about informing the public, it has to be ill intentions because they must be seeking to benefit. 

Capitalism strips all human interaction of its merit and turns everything into a transaction and the transactional nature of capitalism only gets worse and the worse it gets, the more you are going to see cult like mentality around virtually any subject. A general mistrust of any and all experts in virtually any field. The odd veneration of their idols who are more like the general public telling them what they want to hear. I suspect, but do not know for sure, that this is the beginning of delusion and because of its implication of capitalism perhaps nobody has thought of it?

Culture is superior to law

 In the west, long gone are the days when culture was at all relevant, except for maybe to few people who carry their culture to this land with them and practice it as such. As a whole there is little if any culture left in the west, in many ways this is good when speaking of western culture. The culture that was brought to the west by white people was nothing special, it was a self centered ethnocentric culture of domination and genocide. So as far as cultures go, good riddance to that one, though many are trying to maintain this as Christian nationalism and white supremacy, which go hand in hand. So for this piece I am going to focus on cultures I have either read about or personally experienced. Ive read of a handful of tribes and lived in Ethiopia. 

One of the major things I noticed in Ethiopia was there are not that many laws or even law enforcement to enforce the laws they do have. Initially this perplexed me as I could not see with my western eyes how a country could maintain itself without law and those who enforce it. However, being steeped in this culture for two years in Ethiopia and another 16 in my marriage I learned that it was culture that governed the behavior of people, not law and not law enforcement enforcing laws. In fact at that time I began to see how creating numerous laws and a police to enforce them actually created more problems and less freedom than say Ethiopia. 

I was able to see how so many cultures and ethnicities got along in Ethiopia so well. Although occasionally there are political tensions that spill over and create problems. As for the everyday Ethiopian, theres little problem in getting along with fellow Ethiopians of a different ethnicity or religion. 

One of the character traits that western capitalism rewards is a sort of brash self centeredness. It seems as if those who get rewarded in this society must be sociopaths who care for nothing but profits. By contrast, Ethiopian culture shuns this sort of behavior. While it most certainly exists there, as with any capitalist society, its not as rampant. As an example its never looked upon favorably to talk or brag about ones self or ones accomplishments, where in the west thats exactly how you get a job, you basically have to brag about yourself and accomplishments, its how you get ahead. Now, this isnt to say people will not know about what you are doing or have done, as your family will talk you up, but for you to talk yourself up? That is frowned upon. This is just one example of many on how culture is superior to law. 

When I read about different tribes this is one of the things I seek out in the writings, about the culture and of how the culture treats those that deviate from it. How the culture keeps people from getting big heads, how the culture keeps people from behaving in a way that would disrupt the tribe, and the consequences. Shunning someone for deviating is a common practice amongst tribes until the person has suffered and appropriate amount of time. The most severe that I have read thus far is being banished from the tribe completely, which is basically a death sentence in most cases as you need a good size group in order to have a functioning tribe, depending on the tribe and region in which the tribe is located. 

What the west needs is a new culture and it will get one eventually as the United States is currently engaged in a culture war between fascists and communists/socialists/anarchists. So it may be a culture that reverts to fascism, or it may be one that actually has the interests of the people in mind. You may disagree but you should be able to see that more laws do not solve problems, they in fact create more problems and more law enforcement clearly solves nothing but again creates more problems. This idea that laws and law enforcement is meant to solve crime is an absurdity told to us by a country rapidly descending into total fascism. The police state serves their interests, not ours, especially when the supreme court ruled that police have no obligation to protect citizens. It is pretty obvious to anyone that they do not serve us, only the ruling class to protect their property.

Other examples from Ethiopian Culture

In Ethiopia there is no legal drinking age. If a 13 year old was so inclined they could get some beer and get drunk. In Ethiopia you do not see teens doing this. In my two years there I dont think I once seen any teens drinking at any point in time. So what is stopping them from doing this? Its culture that keeps them from doing this. Being a drunk in Ethiopia is culturally frowned upon as it reflects on friends and family that you are in fact a drunk. This would ostracize you from them and you would be more likely to quit drinking so that you could again be with your family and friends without the shame of ruining your life.

Also, there are no laws against Marijuana. Ive met people that smoke it, Ive met people who grow it and sell it, but its not a big deal there. Again, why arent people in droves smoking mass amounts of Marijuana every day there? Again the answer is culture. Its frowned upon to become chemically dependent and this again reflects on family and friends which may lead to ostracizing of the individual. It would again encourage someone to stop smoking, at least too much, so that they can again be with family and friends.

This being said, nobody judges you, lectures you, or arrests you for doing either of these things. Abusing drugs and alcohol is culturally unacceptable and so more often than not people simply dont do them, at least in excess.

I am also reminded of an African proverb that "A child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth" which is exactly the sort of thing we are seeing in America with mass shootings and gun violence almost as a whole. Ethiopias culture is very social, one could say its a socialist culture, not a socialist society but culture. What I mean by that is its very social and everyone is helping everyone to ensure that together they all succeed. I can recall going out for coffee in Ethiopia, thinking we would grab a coffee and then go on about our day. In reality coffee is a social activity. The coffee is roasted and brewed right in front of you and you drink while socializing. I think I spent around 3 hours drinking coffee and socializing. 

I quickly found out that almost everything in Ethiopia has a social aspect to it. Even when I would go out to eat with friends and family we would be dining and socializing for hours upon hours and the restraunt would not be trying to force us out or get us to spend more money. It was expected that we would be spending many hours eating and socializing. When there I truly felt as if I belonged, even when I was generally the only white person in the room. I did not feel the need to use my cell phone, or spend time on the internet at all. I was for the first time in my life comfortable, I felt embraced by the village. In Ethiopia they say the best medicine is another person and I believe that is true. When I came back to the US I remember sinking into a deep depression as the individualism, not the individual, embraced me here. I felt alone, not like when I was in Ethiopia. 

In the US there is a law for virtually everything, and a penalty of some kind for almost every violation. I can get cited for jaywalking as if I am not smart enough to safely cross the street I need the government regulating that and punishing me for not crossing in a crosswalk when I am fully capable of looking both ways and crossing the street safely. The US is a nation of laws which has created a people incapable of doing anything themselves and there are people who rebel against this, rightfully so. We do not need more laws, we do not need more law enforcement as those equal a reduction in freedom. We need a unified culture and less laws.

Why For Proft Ruins Everything

 In a society that prioritizes profit over all things, how on earth can we know what reality actually is? We are in a gulf of never ending products, each trying its best to prove they care about us when in reality they only care about selling something to us. Something created at low cost and sold for well more than what it is actually worth. How can we know someone is being sincere when the motive is profit. Can we know that the person selling us a medicine is being sincere? No, they know we have a problem and created a solution to it in order to make a profit from us. For profit anything ruins everything. It devalues reality and life in general as it reduces everything to a transaction. Our life, in this system, is a series of transactions in which everyone, nearly everyone, is trying to extract some profit from us. The nature of this rubs off onto humans, who then view everything as transactional. So even our actions are calculated responses based on what a person or people can provide for us. Is it profitable for us to be around someone who is depressed? If we can gain anything from this then the answer is yes, if we cannot then we don’t. 

This is why a for profit system ruins everything. It teaches humans to look at everything in terms of how we can profit, reducing literally all interactions to transactions. Even when we date we are looking for something to gain from the interaction, making it a transaction. “If I buy her dinner and something nice, maybe she will fuck me.” Thereby dating becomes transactional. A person may think “Can this person provide a nice life for me? Are they financially stable enough to take care of me so I don’t have to work?” Thereby dating has become transactional, not interactional. This reduction is part of domestication of the human animal in which we have been reduced to living off the very system that is destroying all life on this planet. Without it we would be totally free, with it we are mere cogs in a death machine. However, we are domesticated and cannot live without it, its sort of a symbiotic relationship. We proved labor power, it provides us with the bare minimum, but strips from us our foundational human nature to live off of nature alone. 

Removing a for profit system would certainly be a step up in the human condition under capital, but it would not be a means to an end.

The Crises

 Humans will go to their extinction singing the praises of the very system that is killing them. Despite all the evidence for human caused climate change humans still seem content on living in their delusion that everything is alright. Humans are going about business as usual when in reality we are seeing the effects of climate change first hand and need to be acting to stave off any further damage. But alas, human concern themselves with trivial things and argue about inconsequential nonsense instead of acting. Civilization, namely capitalism, caused the crisis we are seeing today, its clear as day. Yet humans seem to think that civilization, again namely capitalism, is the greatest system ever invented. Its as if we are praising the noose we are about to be hung with. We are praising the gun we are pressing against our head ready to fire. It is sheer nonsense, the height of absurdity. A critique of capitalism here is not enough, as civilization gave rise to capitalism and therefore it is civilization that bears all the blame. 

In our 200,000 years of existence almost all of it was spent living in harmony with nature. We hardly left a mark on nature. and in the last 6,000 years or so we have damaged nature beyond repair and seem content on going to our graves continuing to do so. The handful of people responsible for the bulk of the damage have convinced us that it is we who are the problem and so we should recycle or drive electric cars. When in truth it is they who are the culprits. The masters of civilization are also the archetects of our demise. We need to face reality, accept the truth, and act expediently to stave off anymore damage. As a pessimist I don't see this happening, nothing short of a collapse.

Christians convert more people to atheism than to Christianity

I know this title may seem a bit far fetched, the idea that Christians turn more people to atheism or agnosticism sounds absurd, but hear me out. The main friction Christians have with the rational world is with science and namely evolution. This seems to be what creates more tension between Christians and scientists, or anyone that believes in evolution, than anything else. So I will attempt to show why this battle tends to create more atheism than it does create new Christians.

We as a people, Christian or non-Christian, need to be open to new ideas and information, if we are not we doom ourselves to being simple minded and backwards, unable to progress as a human being both mentally and spiritually. When scientists present us with data, we need to accept it. Of course we first need to be critical of what they present to ensure that what they present is true, thats how science works. But we should not immediately reject any new ideas because it supposedly conflicts with our religious convictions.

As with evolution, Christians tend to think that it is incompatible with scripture. As an evolutionist and a Christian I reject this. I once took this stance that the two were irreconcilable. But over time as I began to realize that science had a point about evolution and it was backed by hard evidence, I understood too that I was not a scientist, I had to accept the reality of evolution. So, what of my faith? Should I abandon it because it conflicts with scientific fact? It was at this point that I realized that it was not scripture that evolution was in conflict with, it was my literal interpretation that was conflicting. As new evidence arose to prove evolution true, I understood that my view of scripture must also change. The creation story in Genesis is not a literal one, it is metaphorical. (detailing that could produce an entire book about the metaphorical meaning so I will spare you). One must also understand the audience Moses was speaking to, former slaves who were almost entirely uneducated and illiterate. He had to present a simple explanation almost like he was talking to kids, hence the reference to the jews as "children."

Moses was not interested in giving a detailed scientific explanation as to how the world came into being, he was giving them a simplistic story that was easy to understand, but not literal. Had Stephen Hawking and Neil Degrasse Tyson, and perhaps Bill Nye, been those amongst the Israelites, he probably would have began with "billions of years ago..." But he didn't do that for the specific reason that the Israelites would not be able to grasp this idea, it would be foreign to them and they were already hostile towards Moses and very untrustworthy of him. He was forced to make a simple explanation.

How do Christians create atheists? Well, when a hardline Christian with a literal view of the bible and no understanding of science debates with a scientist, he goes against all evidence presented, ignores it and then says "well the bible says so its true." This willful rejection of scientific fact and all the research and knowledge of a plethora of scientists who have studied this for years tells them that Christians are dumb people who reject evidence and fact, and denounce all use of reason. Why on earth would that scientist ever want to become a Christian? This tells him or her that Christianity does not hold reason or fact in high regard, and if they reject fact for fiction then none of it must be true. This does not make Christianity appealing to a single one of them.

My advice is to stop rejecting science and leave science to the scientists just as you expect scientists to leave theology to the theologians. Nobody is saying that science proves God does not exist, in fact there are many scientists who do believe in both God and evolution, they see God in creation and it is entirely possible that God used a discoverable way in which to create all things. The big bang most likely happened and this was most likely the method with which God created all things. It is still a miracle that we can all marvel at regardless of how all came into being.

My logic is this, all matter must have an origin. That matter could not have come into being by any materialistic or natural means because we simply do not observe matter creating itself today. If I see a computer or television it is rational for me to say "who made that?" That is logical, and I assert it is also logical for all matter. It is irrational to think matter can come into existence of its own will, matter is inanimate, it just cannot self exist. Some would say, well, then who created God? But this is not a fair question because in asking this we either bring God, an infinite being, to the level of matter or elevate matter to the level of God. It would be like asking where does infinity end. God, by His very nature, has always existed. This is a very difficult concept for finite beings to grasp because our nature is to be born, grow old, and die. We cannot conceive of anything other than that because it is beyond the scope of our understanding. That is, at least, my thinking on the matter.

Christianity was meant to be classless

"Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need." Acts 4:32-35

This is a passage in scripture that is almost completely ignored by all Christian denominations. In fact I would wager that most people who identify as Christians are completely unaware of this passage or what it even means. Its quite simple, early Christians gave their wealth to the church and it was distributed equally among the people. This did a few things, it eliminated class within the church putting everyone on equal footing, and made sure that all were united as one. They were either all poor or all rich, and maybe there were many in between. But the point is they were all of one class. 

Why is that so important? Because when you have classes, a rich and a poor, the rich tend to think of themselves as better or in the Christian context, chosen by God. After all their riches must come from God, that meaning they are appointed. This often leads to the rich then running the church and leaving the poor and middle class out of the decision making. It can often mean leaving the priests out of the decision making as well, since it is the rich that contribute most and therefore pay the salary of the priest. Therefore the priest is put in a position of being under the rule of the rich within the church.

What I have witnessed in many churches is Christian adopting the right wing republican or libertarian view that poor people are poor by their own choosing. They have not worked hard enough and do not deserve any sort of help. This also adds to the idea that they, by virtue of being rich, are somehow better or chosen and therefore are entitled to lord over everyone else. The feeling is that they are rich, therefore they are better decision makers, better thinkers, better people, and or are chosen by God.

The trouble with this is obvious. It creates classes within the church and gives all power to the rich. Christianity was founded by poor people for poor people. Christ did not exactly have positive things to say about wealth and or rich people. This is why it was a requirement in the early church to give up your wealth for the greater good of all the people within that church, to make everyone equal. Yet we see inequality within every church. In nearly every church you will see someone driving to church in a car on its last leg and at the very same church others will be driving expensive luxury cars that are worth more than what that poor person makes in a single year, or two. You will almost always see people who have no worry of medical insurance and those going without medical insurance in that very same church.

This passage in Acts shows graphically that the early church sought to eliminate that by creating a classless society in which all were equal. What changed this and when I do not know but I am sure it happened over a period of time. Slowly but surely the Christian church became a church governed by rich people, for rich people and the poor slowly shut out.

Ask yourself, would anyone in your church be willing to give up their wealth for the good of all people within that church? Would you personally be willing to give over all your wealth for the greater good of all the people within your church? We must ask these questions because it is obvious that every denomination has strayed from the early church and its intent on creating equality within the church.