Is Christianity a Socialistic structure?

tulc · Dec 7, 2019

Sketcher said:
It's commanded by God, yes. But what was the church going to do if somebody didn't give "enough" at a collection? Forcibly take the difference? Break their legs? Remove them to a labor camp?

Well...according to the story of Ananias and Sapphira there were pretty dire consequences for pretending to give more then you actually gave. So failing to give anything at all might be a reason to expel you from the Church. And then there's the fact that Jesus Himself seemed to take a pretty dim view of people who didn't share. Like, get sent to Hell and burn forever, dim.

If not, they still relied upon voluntary cooperation and the non-aggression principle.

That's the ideal anyway. But those stories in the Scriptures do seem to also carry the message: "Voluntary is good, but there is indeed a very large stick for those who fail to do it voluntarily."

That's the foundation that capitalism is built on, not socialism.

heh, heh good one dude...oh wait...you're serious?
tulc(is kind of hoping that was just a humorous tension breaker)

grasping the after wind · Dec 7, 2019

seeking.IAM said:
The Bible supports that some early Christian communities functioned in a socialistic way. That fact is not the same as saying any one economic philosophy is fundamental to Christianity. I think Christianity transcends economic systems.

Nothing in the Bible would support that the early Christians lived in a socialistic way.

The early Christians did not establish a strong centralized government encompassing large geographic areas nor did they enforce compliance with an economic system in which the government controlled or owned means of production. Therefore they were not socialistic .

They lived in a communal way which is very different than a socialistic way. Communes can be extremely small and loosely governed with people voluntarily entering or leaving the commune experience without endangering the commune's mission. Communes, not being the central economic engine of the entire region but only a small community within the greater economic system, do not need to require compliance from anyone outside of their small group. Communes could not be allowed to legally exist within a truly socialist structure as there can be no competing interests in the unwavering top/ down hierarchy that socialism requires.

Albion · Dec 7, 2019

grasping the after wind said:
Nothing in the Bible would support that the early Christians lived in a socialistic way.

That's very true.

The early Christians did not establish a strong centralized government encompassing large geographic areas nor did they enforce compliance with an economic system in which the government controlled or owned means of production. Therefore they were not socialistic .

Absolutely correct.

They lived in a communal way which is very different than a socialistic way.

I don't believe that the NT even says they lived communally. They shared their belongings; that doesn't require communal living.

Communes can be extremely small and loosely governed with people voluntarily entering or leaving the commune experience without endangering the commune's mission. Communes, not being the central economic engine of the entire region but only a small community within the greater economic system, do not need to require compliance from anyone outside of their small group.

Correct again and a very important point.

Socialism is a governmental system.
Socialism is not a voluntary system.
Socialism is not simply a system in which there is a sharing of goods and services.

There is, in fact, almost nothing about the early Christians that can properly be termed "socialistic."

grasping the after wind · Dec 7, 2019

Albion said:
I don't believe that the NT even says they lived communally. They shared their belongings; that doesn't require communal living.

How communal their lifestyle was is unknown to me. Sharing belongings is IMO communal, at least to some degree. I do not know if they lived in a commune or if they lived apart form each other nor to what degree they committed their resources to the common good of the community. Did everything they own become the property of the group or were they just committing a portion? I don't have that information.

Albion · Dec 7, 2019

We don't have all the information. However, the verse seems to indicate only that they shared their belongings and were a close-knit community. There is no implication that they each owned nothing at all and some central authority administered all goods and services for them.

RDKirk · Dec 7, 2019

Albion said:
I don't believe that the NT even says they lived communally. They shared their belongings; that doesn't require communal living.

They didn't merely "share their belongings."

All the believers were together and had everything in common. -- Acts 2

No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. -- Acts 4

They abandoned the concept of personal property. What they were in possession of was the Master's property, not their own. Even their very selves, their lives and bodies, were not their own, but were the property of the Master.

RDKirk · Dec 7, 2019

Albion said:
We don't have all the information. However, the verse seems to indicate only that they shared their belongings. There is no implication that they each owned nothing but that some central authority administered all goods and services for them.

You're deflecting away from what "communal" means. A commune has no "central authority."

OTOH, the congregation in Jerusalem did create a central agency to manage the distribution of food, at least (probably everything else) to those in need.

Albion · Dec 7, 2019

RDKirk said:
They didn't merely "share their belongings."

All the believers were together and had everything in common. -- Acts 2

No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. -- Acts 4

I don't know what 'share their belongings' means to you, but these verses do not indicate that they lived in a commune or single compound with some Jim Jones type administrator running their lives for them. Nor do the usual Bible commentators say that it was that way.

Albion · Dec 7, 2019

RDKirk said:
They abandoned the concept of personal property. What they were in possession of was the Master's property, not their own. Even their very selves, their lives and bodies, were not their own, but were the property of the Master.

Naaa. You are inferring that a spiritual concept about community translates into a quasi governmental structure. And it is understood that this was a momentary development in Jerusalem, that it lasted only briefly, and that it was never the way in other Christian centers. That is important to remember whenever anyone tries to argue that "the early church was socialistic."

grasping the after wind · Dec 7, 2019

Albion said:
I don't know what 'share their belongings' means to you, but these verses do not indicate that they lived in a commune or single compound with some Jim Jones type administrator running their lives for them. Nor do the usual Bible commentators say that it was that way.

Communes are not required to function the way Jonestown functioned. Jones actually was a socialist attempting to set up a socialist society.

tulc · Dec 7, 2019

Albion said:
I don't know what 'share their belongings' means to you,

Well, to me? I'd think it meant "The things that belonged to them? They shared them." I'm pretty confident that's what it means. I'm curious what you think it could mean?

but these verses do not indicate that they lived in a commune or single compound

...do those verses say that isn't what they did? Because you seem pretty confident that anyone who believes they did live communally is absolutely wrong if they think it could be what they did. I'll be honest here, you seem more invested in that not being true then pretty much anyone who thinks it's a possibility.

with some Jim Jones type administrator running their lives for them.

Could your (frankly) over reaction to the chance these verses being used by Christians to form
communes be more related to this part of your post, then to the chance that some parts of the early church lived communally?

Nor do the usual Bible commentators say that it was that way.

I guess this last part seems to be more dependent on who you think of as "the usual Bible commentators" are wouldn't it?
tulc(just some thoughts)

RDKirk · Dec 7, 2019

Albion said:
I don't know what 'share their belongings' means to you, but these verses do not indicate that they lived in a commune or single compound with some Jim Jones type administrator running their lives for them. Nor do the usual Bible commentators say that it was that way.

That's your fixed idea.

seeking.IAM · Dec 7, 2019

I'll just leave this here.

socialism
[ˈsōSHəˌlizəm]
NOUN

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Palmfever · Dec 7, 2019

ChristianForCats said:
This is a denial Jesus is fully man. He is not half man just because he has only one human parent. In fact, he often called himself the Son of Man.

Matthew 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

True, Christ did take on the identity and makeup of first man. Adam. He had to put away briefly His Spiritual body so that He could be slain in our stead. "For with a new testament there must also be the death of the testator".

Christ did come in the flesh as a man. He was/is God. Phil, 2:7… Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited. Instead he emptied himself by assuming the form of a servant, taking on the likeness of humanity. And when he had come as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death even to death on a cross.

He did not take unfair advantage/exploit the fact that He, prior to supernatural/natural birth, was in the form of God. God is a spirit. God has a spiritual body, as will we when we are adopted.

And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

1 Corinthians 15:42. “So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.”

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
God Bless.

Palmfever · Dec 7, 2019

seeking.IAM said:
I'll just leave this here.

socialism
[ˈsōSHəˌlizəm]
NOUN

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Thanks, I'm working on a reply that states just that. Not pushing socialism. Simply curious as to the kind of responses this would garner.
Through common ownership of the means of production, the profit motive is eliminated and the motive of furthering human flourishing is introduced. Because the surplus produced by the workers is the property of the society as a whole, there are no classes of producers and appropriators. Additionally, the state, which has its origins in the bands of retainers hired by the first ruling classes to protect their economic privilege, will disappear as its conditions of existence have disappeared. (Wikipedia)
God Bless

seeking.IAM · Dec 8, 2019

To be clear, I am not promoting socialism either. It seems obvious to me that some view socialism as "bad" due to the nature of socialist regimes with which they are familiar. I think neither capitalism or socialism are inherently good or bad as economic systems, although I prefer one over the over. Both can be bad based upon the way it is implemented in a society. And that's where negative bias enters the picture.

AvisG · Dec 8, 2019

Palmfever said:
Marxism at its core is a lofty ideal. I don’t know that it can ever be implemented in a pure sense. It fails to factor in basic human desires. The desire for wealth, status, power, greater reward for greater effort. Resentment toward an unfair system that rewards the hard working and the lazy equally. Greed and power are great motivators. And our politicians, while some may have begun with altruistic aspirations, Do any believe they aren’t more concerned with re-election to their esteemed position of power and wealth than the concerns of a silent majority? The vociferously obnoxious lost children demand attention.

My wife spent the first 53 years of her life in the Soviet Union, and I have read Marx and Lenin pretty extensively. The Soviet Union was really neither communistic nor socialistic. It was "pretend" communism, with a ruling elite no different from the ruling elite of any capitalist country. While the proletariat was starving in the streets, the ruling elite was eating caviar and hoarding priceless art.

Every "ism" works on paper. Every "ism" is brought down by the same thing: human nature. This is one of the great truths of Christianity.

The "beauty" of capitalism, if you want to call it beauty, is that it meshes most closely with human nature. It doesn't even pretend to mesh with any higher ideal. That's why capitalism can never be unbridled. You'd end up with a perfect hell of human nature. Capitalism must always be tempered with elements from the other "isms."

A perfect Christian society, such as we hope for after the Second Coming, would probably be more accurately described as utopian or egalitarian. Despite the Bible verses that right-wingers love (e.g., the Parable of the Talents, which has nothing to do with money or investing), I really see nothing in Jesus' message that would support a capitalistic perspective.

I believe Jesus' message was more akin to socialism or communism, but with God in place of "the state." But this is an ideal, one that will inevitably be trampled beneath human nature. The best we can do is try to live it on an individual basis.

Albion · Dec 8, 2019

RDKirk said:
That's your fixed idea.

Apparently so, unless history somehow changes itself.

tulc · Dec 8, 2019

Albion said:
Apparently so, unless history somehow changes itself.

...or until people stop pretending their view of history is the only "correct" way to view history?
tulc(is just sayn')

Albion · Dec 8, 2019

tulc said:
...or until people stop pretending their view of history is the only "correct" way to view history?
tulc(is just sayn')

No, it's what I said. Not unless history changes itself.

Is Christianity a Socialistic structure?

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

That's grasping after the wind

Facilitator

That's grasping after the wind

Facilitator

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Facilitator

Facilitator

That's grasping after the wind

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

A View From The Pew

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A View From The Pew

Active Member

Facilitator

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Facilitator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency