Burning_Ember Posted February 18, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,009 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 100 Days Won: 3 Joined: 09/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 18, 2009 WTD, I think this is a nice quote that relates to this. "When I give food to the poor, I'm called a Saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, I'm called a Communist." -Some Person who's name I can't remember. Remember, following the example of Jesus and The Christians in the aforementioned verses in giving the poor food and shelter is the good, ChristianTM thing to do. Instituting a system where that is done is Communism! And of course, The Devil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 QUOTE (nebula @ Feb 17 2009, 09:49 PM) There's a difference between people willingly giving of their possessions to the community - and that of the goverenment taking your possessions and redistributing them. I wonder how willingly it was done when the penalty for refusal to do so was death. There was no penalty of death. Try actually reading the Bible. They died for lying to the Holy Spirit by trying to appear that they had given what they had in fact, kept for themselves. It's pretty close. My point is, the Christians as portrayed in Acts were much closer to Socialism than they were to Capitalism, which so many Christians in America seem to hold in such high regard. It's not even close. Socialism is based upon governmental control of wealth. Socialism is based upon making everyone "equal" in terms of earning/spending power. What you have in Acts is not socialism or spreading wealth or some redistribution of wealth. People simply saw a need they cold fill, and they filled it. They gave to the poor. It does not say that they eliminated poverty, but that they gave to the poor as their conscience dictated. Some might have given less than others and some may have given nothing at all. It was noncompulsary, unimposed giving. It was completely voluntary, free-will giving. One was free to give or not give at all. So, there is absolutely NO similarity here with socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 WTD, I think this is a nice quote that relates to this. "When I give food to the poor, I'm called a Saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, I'm called a Communist." -Some Person who's name I can't remember. Remember, following the example of Jesus and The Christians in the aforementioned verses in giving the poor food and shelter is the good, ChristianTM thing to do. Instituting a system where that is done is Communism! And of course, The Devil. Which highlights a weak grasp on the issue. Communism is based on common ownership and control of property. What you have in the Bible is nothing different than an early version of the Good Will or Salvation Army where goods are voluntarily donated to the poor and then distributed to poor as needed. The giving was completely voluntary and differed from person to person and some may have not felt moved to give at all. Communism is further characterized as a classless society, no rich and no poor, but the New Testament does not at all teach against being rich and having great wealth. Being righ is not the problem. It is when one allows their wealth to take their eyes off of God. It is when gaining wealth take the place of serving the Lord and becomes an end to itself. The love of money (riches wealth, prosperity) is the root of evil, not the money itself. There is absolutely NOTHING in the Bible that even compares with communism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 What about the rest of my post? Do you disagree that if Jesus and the Early Christians had to (hypothetically) choose between Socialism and Capitalism they would likely choose Socialism? They would reject socialism altogether. The New Testament never speaks against being rich. It only speaks of allowing riches, instead of God, to be the object of one's love. Jesus Himself taught that the poor would be with us always. The New Testmaent teaches that we are to look after the poor and the orphans and Widows. The New Teatament does not teach that wealth is to be redistributed, but tells those who are rich how they are to treat those who are poor and disadvantaged. Nowhere does the New Testament condemn the acquisition of wealth; it condemns making wealth an idol to replace the Lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kat8585 Posted February 18, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,360 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 7,866 Content Per Day: 1.23 Reputation: 26 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1946 Share Posted February 18, 2009 WTD, I think this is a nice quote that relates to this. "When I give food to the poor, I'm called a Saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, I'm called a Communist." -Some Person who's name I can't remember. Remember, following the example of Jesus and The Christians in the aforementioned verses in giving the poor food and shelter is the good, ChristianTM thing to do. Instituting a system where that is done is Communism! And of course, The Devil. Instituting a system by force is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricH Posted February 18, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 366 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,933 Content Per Day: 1.57 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 18, 2009 I don't know if we could make a case that the Bible specifically condones or repudiates any economic or political system. It does, however have a lot to say about the fruits of the various systems: things like opression of the poor, materialism, care of widows and oprphans, tyranny, injustice, selfishness, gluttony etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 18, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted February 18, 2009 What about the rest of my post? Do you disagree that if Jesus and the Early Christians had to (hypothetically) choose between Socialism and Capitalism they would likely choose Socialism? According to Torah - Those who grew food were to leave the edges of the field and anything harvested that fell off the carts for the poor to glean. This meant that if the poor wanted food, they had to go to the fields and gather it themselves. Everyone had to give 10% of what they had (not necessarily 10% of their income but of the fruit of their labor) to the Temple. This was for the priests to be provided for and for the priests to distribute to those in need. This 10% was across the board - no "those with more have to give a higher percentage." Giving beyond was a free will and it was encouraged and blessed, but not forced. So if they had to chose, they'd probably stick with the Torah. As is noted in Scripture, "the worker is worthy of his wages." But, as far as the government economic system - considering that it was the Roman government in charge, I doubt they would have wanted any more of their money going to Roman control. ~~~~~~ The problem with Capitalism is that it has nothing to curb greed. But, is it the job of government to curb greed? And how can they, when greed is a condition of the heart? Besides how can the Lord reward you for your giving if it is forced and not freely given from your heart? The problem with Socialism is that it kills motivation (why should I work my butt off if I'm going to be no better off then the ones who do nothing or little?) - thus you have less productivity, less money flow, and who would want the headaches of management if the manager was left with the same income as the new hire on the bottom rung? Plus, if the government controls the money and the money flow, they can control what you do with the money they give you. (i.e. you can only buy food from this store - seriously, what would stop them from doing such?). Besides, when the government takes your income, you have no control over where it goes. How do you know that money taken will be feeding a starving child and not funding an abortion or be handed as cash to someone who will spend the money at a bar? How can you know? By the way, with Socialism, who is hurt more - the truly wealthy or the Middle Class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick-Parker Posted February 18, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 200 Topics Per Day: 0.23 Content Count: 4,271 Content Per Day: 4.90 Reputation: 1,855 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/17/2021 Status: Offline Birthday: 06/03/1955 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 A classless society? We forget about the leaders. They hold themselves aloof from the "classless" peasants. They make themselves rich, above the law. They eliminate any decent. Sound familiar? The first Christians would have rejected socialism; they were more into the communal thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 18, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted February 18, 2009 My point is, the Christians as portrayed in Acts were much closer to Socialism than they were to Capitalism, which so many Christians in America seem to hold in such high regard. What they did in Jerusalem was more like a church taking care of its members than it was a government-controlled or regulated economic system. What the believers gave was a free-will offering, not a regulation. Something to note: Acts 11:27-30 27 During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.) 29 The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea. 30 This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul. If the entire Roman world was to be effected, why did they need to specifically help the brethren living in Judea. Could it be that because those with the ability to produce wealth (back then, land was a wealth-generator) no longer had that ability since they sold their land? So while it seemed a good thing to do in the short-term, how did it help them in the long-term? Once they sold their land and gave their money - that was it. They could no longer provide from excess for they no longer had any excess to give. And thus, it seems, they became as much in need as the next guy when hard times came. Is this truly a good idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted February 18, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.10 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted February 18, 2009 Right, socialism is evil. Which is why the Christians in the book of Acts were socialists. Nope. Socialism is a type of government...these people were doing this on their own. Btw, socialism isn't evil, it's just a dumb idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts