Newsweek

[WillingToDie]

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.

It amuses me how you feel the need to imply that I've not read my Bible. It may surprise you that I came to these conclusions by *gasp* reading the Bible. Now, I could turn around and say the same thing to you, as your portrayal of the events is not exactly accurate.

First, the deaths: there is much emphasis in that pericope on the deed. It seems to me that the deed of holding back property was just as heinous as lying about it. The most you can say, from the text, is that the lying was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

Second, what we have is indeed a system in which it is explicitly stated that there is no private ownership. Everything they have is sold, not just some of it. It'sright there in 4: 32-37

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.

So you're saying that they would reject Socialism (a system that favors the poor and dispossessed) and instead choose to follow Capitalism (a system that favors the rich and powerful)? What evidence do you have for this, other than the fact that you like Capitalism better than Socialism?

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?

Thanks Neb for your reasoned (and non-condescending) response. I agree that Socialism has its problems (some of them quite serious), it's not perfect. But at least it starts with a concern for the poor.

One thing i have noticed is that there's a lot of emphasis on the government "taking money", of forced giving. I understand that you have no control over where your taxes go (I'm not too happy about my tax dollars going to feed a war machine and bail out businesses that dug their own grave), but if you knew that your money was going towards helping the poor, would you not give your money freely through taxes?

In an ideal world, those who do have would of course take care of those who don't, but we clearly don't live in such a world. I like our system how it is, in theory, where the government provides a safety net for the people, we're just not doing that great of a job in practice.

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?

This is an interesting point, and perhaps it would have been better to give their land to the apostles, rather than selling it.

Another thing to note, the early Christian community would not have been an anarchistic community (clearly), so the apostles were clearly the government for their community. And the Scriptures speak of the people laying the proceeds at the feet of the apostles (i.e. giving it to the government to do with as they see fit).

[nebula]

First, the deaths: there is much emphasis in that pericope on the deed. It seems to me that the deed of holding back property was just as heinous as lying about it. The most you can say, from the text, is that the lying was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

When I read Peter's rebuke, he said that when the sold the land the money was theirs to do with as they wished. This implies that there was "no condemnation" for not giving all. If they gave their portion and declared it as a portion, do you suppose anything would have happened to them?

Second, what we have is indeed a system in which it is explicitly stated that there is no private ownership. Everything they have is sold, not just some of it. It'sright there in 4: 32-37

But if you notice, it begins with the people being of one heart and soul.

It's easy to share what you have with your family and friends whom you know likewise care for you. Can you do so with total strangers whom you have no idea what they will do with what you paid for?

If you don't start out as being of one heart and soul, the whole cookie crumbles.

So you're saying that they would reject Socialism (a system that favors the poor and dispossessed) and instead choose to follow Capitalism (a system that favors the rich and powerful)? What evidence do you have for this, other than the fact that you like Capitalism better than Socialism?

Question: If Israel was under Socialism during the time of Christ, would Joseph of Arimithea have had the money to have his own tomb with which he would have been able to bury Jesus' body in?

Thanks Neb for your reasoned (and non-condescending) response. I agree that Socialism has its problems (some of them quite serious), it's not perfect. But at least it starts with a concern for the poor.

One thing i have noticed is that there's a lot of emphasis on the government "taking money", of forced giving. I understand that you have no control over where your taxes go (I'm not too happy about my tax dollars going to feed a war machine and bail out businesses that dug their own grave), but if you knew that your money was going towards helping the poor, would you not give your money freely through taxes?

I am one who believes that private organizations do a better job at taking care of the poor than the governement.

Question: If your possessions and money were "owned by everyone" - would you be able to tithe what you have to your church? Well, how can you if it's not yours to tithe?

Question: How many churches could run their ministries to the poor if the government was regulating financial redistribution?

Consider this - when major disasters strike (i.e. the tsunami of 2004), how many donations pour in from private citizens and corporations and businesses? (I remember there being a fuss because some countries thought the US government gave too little, but if you inlcuded the private sector and not just the government, the amount poured in from the US pretty much surpassed everyone.)

With socialism, would this have been possible?

Now, about your statement, I disagree that Capitolism favors the wealthy. I believe it favors productivity. When the ones that have are not greedy and selfish, but give what they have to the poor and needy, Capitolism works great! (For a little inspiration, check out how many NASCAR drivers pour their wealth into others' organizations or their own organizations that help such. It's very heart-warming. )

Going back to my previous statement, would they be able to continue such things as Victory Junction (a camp for chronically and seriously ill children) if the governement had control of their funds? Would you want the governement regulating such things as Victory Junction? (Because then it wouldn't be the Petty's camp - if ownership is taken away - or if they depended on the govenrnment for funding rather than the donations from the other drivers and fans, wouldn't they have to follow the government's petty rules like the public schools?

In an ideal world, those who do have would of course take care of those who don't, but we clearly don't live in such a world. I like our system how it is, in theory, where the government provides a safety net for the people, we're just not doing that great of a job in practice.

But socialism isn't a safety net, is it? Isn't it - the net?

This is an interesting point, and perhaps it would have been better to give their land to the apostles, rather than selling it.

Another thing to note, the early Christian community would not have been an anarchistic community (clearly), so the apostles were clearly the government for their community. And the Scriptures speak of the people laying the proceeds at the feet of the apostles (i.e. giving it to the government to do with as they see fit).

Yeah - but the Apostles were nothing like those - eh-hem - loons in DC!

The Apostles didn't lord over the people, didn't give themselves payraises after cutting the wages of other federal employees, didn't own two or more homes, weren't power hungry, etc., etc., etc.

When the people in power stop living affluent lifestyles themselves, then I'll start listening to their "tax the wealthy" rhetoric.

[Guest shiloh357]

It amuses me how you feel the need to imply that I've not read my Bible. It may surprise you that I came to these conclusions by *gasp* reading the Bible.

Even if you did actually read the account, you are not understanding it correctly, as your following remarks show:

First, the deaths: there is much emphasis in that pericope on the deed. It seems to me that the deed of holding back property was just as heinous as lying about it. The most you can say, from the text, is that the lying was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

Wrong. The Bible makes only one claim about why they died. Peter stated that the property was their's do with as they pleased, meaning that holding it back was not a sin, much less "heinous." The only sin they died for was for misrepresenting the price and acting as if the money they gave was the full purchase price when in fact, they were holding money back for themselves.

Second, what we have is indeed a system in which it is explicitly stated that there is no private ownership. Everything they have is sold, not just some of it. It'sright there in 4: 32-37

Well, let's examine your claim in the light of truth.

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

(Acts 4:32-37)

It does not say there was no private ownership. Having all things in common and being willing to share of what you have with others is not a denial of private ownership. There were some who were more affluent who sold land and brought the money to distribute to the poor. What the text does not say is that this was required of anyone. This was not a redistribution of wealth. It was a voluntary act on the part on the part of those who could afford to part with property. It does not say that every person who had a house sold it. The text is clearly talking about those who were more affluent. They gave to each "as he had need." The operative term is need. This was not a redistribution of wealth, but was simply assistance that provided to those in need. It was not equally divided among the collective. It was simply a means of helping the poor, and nothing more.

Annanias and Saphirra's flesh was aroused and they hatched a scheme to make themselves appear more generous than really intended to be. They probably saw people who gave incredible amounts receive accolades, and they wanted in on that action, and so they attempted to deceive the apostles, albeit, to their own peril.

Now, I could turn around and say the same thing to you, as your portrayal of the events is not exactly accurate.

Yes, you could. Except that when I say it, it is based on fact.

So you're saying that they would reject Socialism (a system that favors the poor and dispossessed) and instead choose to follow Capitalism (a system that favors the rich and powerful)? What evidence do you have for this, other than the fact that you like Capitalism better than Socialism?

If socialism was th way to go, then why didn't God set Israel up to be a socialist-styled government in the first place? The fact that God did not set Israel up after "socialist" fashion speaks volumes. In the Torah based lifestyle established by God for Israel in the beginning, every man was a private property owner and failed or succeeded based on his own work ethic. The Bible is constantly pointing to hardwork and rugged indvidualism rooted in a strong faith in God as the means to prosperity.

In the ancient Israel men had to keep to accurate genealogical records. The reason why was that geneaolgies were the only means you had of establishing proof of property ownership. These records were kept in the Temple. The Temple doubled as both a house of worship as well as a "hall of records" in the first century. Property ownership was VERY important as it was handed down from father to son. You had to be able to prove that your father, and his father, and his father before him, and his father before him, and his father before him, and so on, were owners of the property you were living on. An inaccurate geneaolgical record would end up leaving you dispossessed and homeless.

Furthermore, the fact that God set up system to help the poor based on the tithe, shows that He did not favor a socialist form of government. Their were poor people all over Israel from its very inception. There was no socialist program to distribute common property to all people. The Bible ascribes laziness as one of the primary causes of poverty. It doesn't blame the rich except when the rich deal dishonestly. Unlike liberal ideology, the Bible does not equate riches with evil.

The Torah based society of Israel was what these first Jewish believers came out of. It was what they were familiar with. There was nothing they did that can be classified as socialist.

[thunderbyrd]

ok, the debate over socialism can go on forever. but here's what interests me and hasn't been addressed: how do you feel about Newsweek declaring the USA to be a socialist nation? are they the ones who decide that we are? have we become socialist because they have made this declaration?

looks like a heck of a step, to me, for a mere magazine.

[Guest yod]

ok, the debate over socialism can go on forever. but here's what interests me and hasn't been addressed: how do you feel about Newsweek declaring the USA to be a socialist nation? are they the ones who decide that we are? have we become socialist because they have made this declaration?

looks like a heck of a step, to me, for a mere magazine.

no, we're becoming (or have become) a socialist state because the government is nationalizing business. Newsweek is only reporting the obvious

[WillingToDie]

[1]When I read Peter's rebuke, he said that when the sold the land the money was theirs to do with as they wished. This implies that there was "no condemnation" for not giving all. If they gave their portion and declared it as a portion, do you suppose anything would have happened to them?

Second, what we have is indeed a system in which it is explicitly stated that there is no private ownership. Everything they have is sold, not just some of it. It'sright there in 4: 32-37

[2]But if you notice, it begins with the people being of one heart and soul.

It's easy to share what you have with your family and friends whom you know likewise care for you. Can you do so with total strangers whom you have no idea what they will do with what you paid for?

If you don't start out as being of one heart and soul, the whole cookie crumbles.

[3]Question: If Israel was under Socialism during the time of Christ, would Joseph of Arimithea have had the money to have his own tomb with which he would have been able to bury Jesus' body in?

[4]I am one who believes that private organizations do a better job at taking care of the poor than the governement.

Question: If your possessions and money were "owned by everyone" - would you be able to tithe what you have to your church? Well, how can you if it's not yours to tithe?

Question: How many churches could run their ministries to the poor if the government was regulating financial redistribution?

Consider this - when major disasters strike (i.e. the tsunami of 2004), how many donations pour in from private citizens and corporations and businesses? (I remember there being a fuss because some countries thought the US government gave too little, but if you inlcuded the private sector and not just the government, the amount poured in from the US pretty much surpassed everyone.)

With socialism, would this have been possible?

.

[5]Now, about your statement, I disagree that Capitolism favors the wealthy. I believe it favors productivity. When the ones that have are not greedy and selfish, but give what they have to the poor and needy, Capitolism works great! (For a little inspiration, check out how many NASCAR drivers pour their wealth into others' organizations or their own organizations that help such. It's very heart-warming. )

Going back to my previous statement, would they be able to continue such things as Victory Junction (a camp for chronically and seriously ill children) if the governement had control of their funds? Would you want the governement regulating such things as Victory Junction? (Because then it wouldn't be the Petty's camp - if ownership is taken away - or if they depended on the govenrnment for funding rather than the donations from the other drivers and fans, wouldn't they have to follow the government's petty rules like the public schools?

OK Neb, I took a different approach to answering. Also I had to delete all the points where you quoted me, so it looks kind of weird.

[1]It's hard to say, the fact that 4:32 says that none claimed any possessions indicates that it was expected of those who came into the community to not claim any possessions of their own.

[2] A couple of things come to mind here: First, my original statement in this thread was that socialism is not evil, because the early church practiced something that was similar to what we call socialism today (no ownership of property, property distributed as needed, etc), not to defend the economic system known today as socialism. While I freely admit that I have socialist leanings, this does not make me a Socialist.

[3]Second, every time you give money to a homeless person, are you not giving money to someone who you have no idea what they're going to do with it? You hope they use it to buy food, but you also know that chances are they will use it to feed whatever addiction they suffer from.

Socialism does not necessarily entail Communism (or Marxist Socialism), and therefore does not necessarily mean there are no rich people. Look at Europe, who are, in general, far more socialist than we are. Again I ask, what indication is there that Jesus and the Apostles would choose Capitalism over Socialism?

[4] Private organizations may indeed be more efficient, but they clearly do not have the means to operate on the scale that is needed. If the government were to stop taxing everybody, I doubt that everyone who has excess money would pour that into organizations to help the poor. At least the government, while not terribly efficient, is capable of acting on the scale needed.

Second, although my understanding of tax law is slim, my understanding is that money donated to non-profits is tax-deductible, at least in part (and if it's not fully deductible, it should be).

Finally, I am not espousing full Socialism, I support a healthy mix of Capitalism and Socialism, so constantly having to defend something I don't fully support is....tiresome

[5]historically speaking, capitalism has been an abysmal failure when it comes to taking care of the poor. Due to the human condition, greed is the driving force behind Capitalism. Put differently, Capitalism, in its purest (and other less pure) form rewards greed. Does that not disgust you? I know it does me.

[1]Wrong. The Bible makes only one claim about why they died. Peter stated that the property was their's do with as they pleased, meaning that holding it back was not a sin, much less "heinous." The only sin they died for was for misrepresenting the price and acting as if the money they gave was the full purchase price when in fact, they were holding money back for themselves.

[2]Well, let's examine your claim in the light of truth.

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

(Acts 4:32-37)

It does not say there was no private ownership. Having all things in common and being willing to share of what you have with others is not a denial of private ownership. There were some who were more affluent who sold land and brought the money to distribute to the poor. What the text does not say is that this was required of anyone. This was not a redistribution of wealth. It was a voluntary act on the part on the part of those who could afford to part with property. It does not say that every person who had a house sold it. The text is clearly talking about those who were more affluent. They gave to each "as he had need." The operative term is need. This was not a redistribution of wealth, but was simply assistance that provided to those in need. It was not equally divided among the collective. It was simply a means of helping the poor, and nothing more.

Annanias and Saphirra's flesh was aroused and they hatched a scheme to make themselves appear more generous than really intended to be. They probably saw people who gave incredible amounts receive accolades, and they wanted in on that action, and so they attempted to deceive the apostles, albeit, to their own peril.

[3]Yes, you could. Except that when I say it, it is based on fact.

[4]If socialism was th way to go, then why didn't God set Israel up to be a socialist-styled government in the first place? The fact that God did not set Israel up after "socialist" fashion speaks volumes. In the Torah based lifestyle established by God for Israel in the beginning, every man was a private property owner and failed or succeeded based on his own work ethic. The Bible is constantly pointing to hardwork and rugged indvidualism rooted in a strong faith in God as the means to prosperity.

In the ancient Israel men had to keep to accurate genealogical records. The reason why was that geneaolgies were the only means you had of establishing proof of property ownership. These records were kept in the Temple. The Temple doubled as both a house of worship as well as a "hall of records" in the first century. Property ownership was VERY important as it was handed down from father to son. You had to be able to prove that your father, and his father, and his father before him, and his father before him, and his father before him, and so on, were owners of the property you were living on. An inaccurate geneaolgical record would end up leaving you dispossessed and homeless.

Furthermore, the fact that God set up system to help the poor based on the tithe, shows that He did not favor a socialist form of government. Their were poor people all over Israel from its very inception. There was no socialist program to distribute common property to all people. The Bible ascribes laziness as one of the primary causes of poverty. It doesn't blame the rich except when the rich deal dishonestly. Unlike liberal ideology, the Bible does not equate riches with evil.

The Torah based society of Israel was what these first Jewish believers came out of. It was what they were familiar with. There was nothing they did that can be classified as socialist.

[1] Let's look at the text:

But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; 2with his wife

[Guest yod]

why did God not set up Israel to be a Capitalist-style government I the first place?

Because His Kingdom is an everlasting Monarchy!

It resembles no form of government known to man. Israel was "set up by God" to be a nation of kings and priests under that form of government but men desired a king like the nations, instead.

Until there is a nation of kings and priests who are yielding completely to His Theocratic Monarchy, then its silly to compare the kehila of Jerusalem to the kinds of greco-european governments of the world previous and/or today.

If anything, the original faith kehila (community) of Jerusalem was like a modern day kibbutz where everyone shares the work, the food, and the profits. It's an ineffecient model unless everyone involved is a servant with the mind of Messiah (who gave Himself up for us).

That experiment ended up as a financial disaster but these original saints eventually changed the entire world by their suffering for His Name.

But back to the point of the OP:

Socialism is a centralized government owning all social aspects of a nation but the citizens are always the ones who pay for it. This arrangement depends on employing enough citizens to control any/all other citizens who might oppose the plan.

Banking, communications, transportation, labor, you name it....all controlled by the government and paid for by taxation of all (excepting Democrats in this case, of course)

[Guest shiloh357]

It seems clear from the text that the issue at hand was that he both kept part of the proceeds for himself, AND that he lied. To say that it was only because he lied is an oversimplification, and is not faithful to the spirit of the text.

Wrong, WTD.

Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

(Acts 5:4)

It is fairly clear that they were not required to give the entirety. This was done out of freewill not as a compulsory act. Peter reminded them that it was theirs and that it was in their power to do with as they pleased.

Satan filled their heart to do two things that were linked together in a common scheme. They held back the price and then lied about it. Had they simply decided to give half of what they held sold it for, and had simply been honest about it, there would not have been a problem. It was theirs to do with as they pleased. Holding it back was only problem due to their motives. Had it not been linked to an evil motive, there would not have been a problem.

Did you even read other translations, or did you just assume I was making stuff up? Let's look at the NRSV:

32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35They laid it at the apostles