Every community has a boundary around it. A community is not definable without a boundary. The boundary is where wars are fought against anyone who is not part of the community. That standard replaced morality, first in the documents of Vatican II, and then various other places.

Outside of every community are victims who are sinned at. If that boundary isn't there, call it love instead of community, as Christ did. Love is a standard; community is a corrupt power structure.

Community is an ethic. It is not based on developed and studied principles; it is promoted nihilisticly by feel and example.

The problem with promoting an ethic without accountable principles is that it becomes an outlet for subconscious corruptions which are not understood. The subconscious corruptions are standard, and there is a desire to promote them, because they are developed through positive reinforcements.

God's primary purpose with religion is to replace sin with morality. He spent four thousand years developing the subject through the Bible. So why replace it all with a nihilistic ethic? It is done to create an alternative which allows subconscious corruptions to be promoted.

Otherwise, why not use the moral concepts which God developed? The pretense is that Community is so lovey-dovey. Guess what. God based his concept of morality on love. How can community be more lovey-dovey than love?

The difference is that God's concept of love requires overcoming sin. Community does not.

One might assume that community is a more secular version of morality, which can be justifiably taught in the schools. However, Community started its excursion in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and is promoted most significantly in the Catholic Church.

Once the term community becomes common-place, one can hardly blame anyone for using it as a representation of morality. The real sin is in the care-takers of the subject (religious authorities) developing it as an alternative to Biblical morality.

In social dialog, the term community can barely be justified as indicating the interdependence of all human activity. It should not have to be mentioned, since all that humans do has interdependent elements, and the only question is the specific nature of them. But conservatives claim that the victims of oppression should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, which implies an absence of interdependence, and the term community is a way of countering that assumption.

Beyond countering conservativism, the term community represents group power. Power is not a direct corruption, but it is corruptive, and seeking it always has the purpose of promoting corruption, atleast subconsciously.

Community replaced morality in the documents of Vatican-II. Nowhere is community described or defined. It is based on ultra-nihilism. That should say something about its validity. Only corruption needs to be concealed, not truth.

In the documents of V-II, there are a few paragraphs on traditional morality sandwiched in with the subject of community. They are out of place with the context, which means they were tack-ons for getting the documents through the voting process. They disappeared on the page, as community is the new ethic of the religion.

The reason for the nihilism is that sin cannot be promoted through open descriptions or analysis, because it will not stand up to truth. Instead, it is promoted by implication and example, while words state the opposite. For example, corrupted persons like to call their sin love. Therefore, one must look at the applications to determine what their words mean.

The clearest example of what community means is in the way churches are being designed. Everyone must sit in a circle and worship themselves, because that is community.

Another telling example is in a redescription of "body of Christ." The group is God or Christ, because they are the "body of Christ." "Body of Christ" started out as a representation of the Church. Atleast with modern concepts, the people are supposed to be the Church; so they are the "body of Christ."

Another concept is very telling. The only sin recognized in the V-II version of the religion, as stated in the documents, apart from the sandwiched in morality, is "individualism." Individualism was portrayed as the curse of man, but there was no explanation of why.

Elsewhere, the rationale is to equate individualism with self-centeredness, sort of like selfishness. In other words, not feeding the hungry is due to individualism.

Individual is not a synonym for self. There are individuals who are not self. If they cannot be respected as individuals, then they are dehumanized.

Community is dehumanizing, because it expects the concerns of individuals to be replaced with the promotion of an entity, a group.

All constructivity starts with the individual. Persons can only be responsible for themselves, and they must make all of their basic decisions themselves. To do otherwise would be like chewing each other's food.

In other words, selfishness is not the only thing individuals produce; they also produce responsibilities. The selfishness does not have to be learned; it is automatic. Responsibilities do have to be learned, because they include a lot of complexity. So the ethic of opposing "individualism" leaves the selfishness in place while obstructing the process of learning responsibilities.

Corruption is the opposite of everything that is right. Corrupted persons cannot stand individualism, because they must control everything to eliminate any opposition. They want everyone to function as one mass which can be controlled by pulling one string.

This motive is what caused bureaucrats to bankrupt agriculture during the eighties. There are no significant links between farmers; they are a group of individuals. Therefore they cannot be controlled. Bureaucrats wanted to replace them with corporations, which create structured power. The problem was, the corporations were the first to go bankrupt, because they cannot function as efficiently as owner-operators. So the net result was that the new farmers who had loans to pay went bankrupt and were replaced by yuppies who needed something to invest in.

To a large extent the, "citizens militias" are made up of farmers who were bankrupt by the bureaucrats. They speak from experience.

Community is promoted because it represents one of the major concerns of corrupted persons, which is the linking of all persons together into a mob. As discussed in the section on sin, collaboration is everything in promoting sin. It creates power, controllability and psychological security.

However, such concerns cannot be promoted openly, because time has demonstrated much truth on the significance of mob action. Totalitarianism demonstrates the human degradation that goes with mob power. The criminality of conspiracies must be scape-goated by denying any links to those who are found guilty.

Therefore, the collaborations of sin must go underground and be promoted covertly. Community is a covert method of promoting the mob mentality of sin.

The superficial implications are that community is a lovey-dovey concern of some sort. In actuality, it is the opposite.

Community creates a boundary around the lovey-dovey concerns; so they do not apply to everyone. By contrast, morality universalizes the standards.

The primary significance of creating a boundary through community is that it promotes a conflict with everyone outside the community. Critics, among other enemies, are outside the community and are supposed to conform by joining the community or suffer the consequences.

Community is a type of power structure which is used to control and dominate. If forces everyone to comply with the wishes of the persons who control the community.

It is also a method of drawing a line between insiders and outsiders. All sin requires and creates such a line, because sin cannot exist unless there are two standards—one for the insiders or good guys, and one for the outsiders or bad guys. The double standard is called hypocrisy. If there were only one standard, the sin would have to end, because corrupted persons cannot allow the same standard to be applied to themselves which they apply to their enemies.

If community is not all of that, why not call it morality? Those are the differences between community and morality and the reason why community is not promoted in the Scriptures.

With religious sanctification of community, persons who are outside the community are supposed to be the ones who are corrupted. Then criticizing the sin is the only sin. There is no sin but the truth about sin in the world of sin.

Community is similar to the political concept of circling the wagons to fight enemies. It is how enemies are fought, not how morality is promoted.

The real significance of community is demonstrated by the fact that it did not exist as an ethic (quasi moral concept) untill a few years ago. It therefore says that God didn't know what he was doing over the past four thousand years in developing moral truth through religion, and a few nihilistic slogans are supposed to replace his work. You can be sure that when corrupted persons are creating a new ethic, the purpose is to promote sin, not overcome it.