Is Socialism Anti-Christian?

[Francis Drake]

The Early Church adopted a communal (more extreme socialist) model, under the Apostles of Christ Himself:
Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 4:
32And 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.

33And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34Neither 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,

35And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

As you see, nobody had their own possessions but instead sold their (former) possessions and took the money from the sale and laid it at the Apostles' feet, then the Apostles DISTRIBUTED the resources according to need so there was none among them who lacked anything.

But you think socialism is "bad". Somehow I and others are supposed to believe that you know better than the Apostles of Christ. Wow.

In actual provable fact, this is a case of you and your friends thinking you know better than the apostles.

You read the scriptures and then ram your left wing politics into it. Unfortunately, you missed the most important bit, that it was entirely voluntary and there was absolutely no compulsion to do it, and that it had no connection to socialism which forcibly takes your money and gives it to others.

Either deliberately or ignorantly, you conveniently left off the rest of the story which demonstrates the fallacy of your claim.-
Acts5v1Now a certain man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a property, 2and he kept back from the proceeds, also the wife being aware of it, and having brought a certain portion, he laid it at the feet of the apostles.
3But Peter said, “Ananias, because of why has Satan filled your heart for you to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back from the proceeds of the land?
What do they call it today, virtue signalling. The couple wanted everyone to see how righteous and generous they were, but it was a lie.

4While it remained, was it not yours yours? And having been sold, was it not in the own authority? Why did you purpose this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God!”
The above explains why it wasn't socialism. They always retained ownership of the property, till they gave it where they freely chose to give it.

5And hearing these words, Ananias, having fallen down, breathed his last. And great fear came upon all those hearing. 6And the younger men having arisen, covered him, and having carried him out, buried him.

And as we know, his wife compounded the same lie, with the same swift result.

I obviously agree with the wonderful generosity of the early disciples in giving everything away. But two factors in your example need to be addressed.
1) It was entirely voluntary.
2) The disciples could choose where they gave the money, in this case for the apostles to distribute.

The above 2 factors utterly deny your thesis that the apostles practised socialism.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

In actual provable fact, this is a case of you and your friends thinking you know better than the apostles.

You read the scriptures and then ram your left wing politics into it. Unfortunately, you missed the most important bit, that it was entirely voluntary and there was absolutely no compulsion to do it, and that it had no connection to socialism which forcibly takes your money and gives it to others.

Either deliberately or ignorantly, you conveniently left off the rest of the story which demonstrates the fallacy of your claim.-
Acts5v1Now a certain man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a property, 2and he kept back from the proceeds, also the wife being aware of it, and having brought a certain portion, he laid it at the feet of the apostles.
3But Peter said, “Ananias, because of why has Satan filled your heart for you to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back from the proceeds of the land?
What do they call it today, virtue signalling. The couple wanted everyone to see how righteous and generous they were, but it was a lie.

4While it remained, was it not yours yours? And having been sold, was it not in the own authority? Why did you purpose this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God!”
The above explains why it wasn't socialism. They always retained ownership of the property, till they gave it where they freely chose to give it.

5And hearing these words, Ananias, having fallen down, breathed his last. And great fear came upon all those hearing. 6And the younger men having arisen, covered him, and having carried him out, buried him.

And as we know, his wife compounded the same lie, with the same swift result.

I obviously agree with the wonderful generosity of the early disciples in giving everything away. But two factors in your example need to be addressed.
1) It was entirely voluntary.
2) The disciples could choose where they gave the money, in this case for the apostles to distribute.

The above 2 factors utterly deny your thesis that the apostles practised socialism.

The story of Ananias and Sapphira does not at all change the fact that the Early Church operated under a communal, socialist system. It's plain as day. All the people rich and poor POOLED their resources. they sold their possessions and had no possessions afterwards, instead giving the money to the Apostles who then redistributed the wealth so that nobody was in need for anything. They divided up all the money for the greater good. They took money from wealthy people and redistributed it to the poor who needed it. That's a model for how we should live with others. The Bible, especially in Christ's own words, goes on to talk about how we are supposed to serve "the least among" us - the sick, the elderly, the poor, the hungry, the outcasts. Whatever we do to them we are doing to Christ. In a socialist environment, "the least among" us are at least having basic needs taken care of (and maybe even more). That is the Christian way, to serve those in need the way God serves us in our need, especially the way Christ lived a whole lifetime of serving those in need.

In fact, the story of Ananias and Sapphira confirms the fact that they were in a socialistic, communal Church community. In fact, it not only confirms it but it drives home the point that cheating a socialist network by lying is an affront to that entire community (and in the case of Ananias and Sapphira it was an affront to God because that community was God's Church).

And who are my "friends" that you're referring to? What are you even talking about? Bizarre.

 

[FreedomForever]

No socialist government has ever come close to being good, and so the word "socialism" is forever tainted and unusable.

However, the idea that all human beings are equal and deserve equal protection, opportunity, and resources is a million times more aligned with the teachings of Jesus Christ than anything that has to do with capitalism or corporatism, which ironically most Christians subscribe to.

 

[Under One King]

What we see in Acts is how Christians should be. That is not how the government should be.

 

[Under One King]

The story of Ananias and Sapphira does not at all change the fact that the Early Church operated under a communal, socialist system. It's plain as day. All the people rich and poor POOLED their resources. they sold their possessions and had no possessions afterwards, instead giving the money to the Apostles who then redistributed the wealth so that nobody was in need for anything. They divided up all the money for the greater good. They took money from wealthy people and redistributed it to the poor who needed it. That's a model for how we should live with others. The Bible, especially in Christ's own words, goes on to talk about how we are supposed to serve "the least among" us - the sick, the elderly, the poor, the hungry, the outcasts. Whatever we do to them we are doing to Christ. In a socialist environment, "the least among" us are at least having basic needs taken care of (and maybe even more). That is the Christian way, to serve those in need the way God serves us in our need, especially the way Christ lived a whole lifetime of serving those in need.

In fact, the story of Ananias and Sapphira confirms the fact that they were in a socialistic, communal Church community. In fact, it not only confirms it but it drives home the point that cheating a socialist network by lying is an affront to that entire community (and in the case of Ananias and Sapphira it was an affront to God because that community was God's Church).

And who are my "friends" that you're referring to? What are you even talking about? Bizarre.

Ananias and Sapphira didn't "cheat" a supposed "socialist network." They had every right to not sell there property, and they also had every right to give some to God, but also keep some for themselves. Peter made that clear. You are trying to put something in the story which is not there

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Ananias and Sapphira didn't "cheat" a supposed "socialist network." They had every right to not sell there property, and they also had every right to give some to God, but also keep some for themselves. Peter made that clear. You are trying to put something in the story which is not there

They absolutely did cheat their community by lying to them. Cheating is a form of lying. Still, it doesn't change the fact that the Early Church under the Apostles' leadership practiced communal redistribution of wealth.

Do you think redistribution of wealth is evil? Do you think the Early Church and Christ's Apostles were evil for being Socialists??? Just say so. I certainly don't agree but you can have that opinion. But your opinion doesn't change the reality that they practiced an extreme form of socialism, practically communism.

 

[Justified_By_Christ_Alone]

Why does a government exist? To ensure a safe and livable society. If the government never intervened there would be anarchy. Just as no one likes seeing crime on the streets, no one likes seeing homelessness and poverty on the streets either. People do their best to give, as Christians we are supposed to be on top of that. But it is not enough as the poverty issue is still prevalent as ever. Many homeless people are left stuck and without a choice. Many end up in that situation through no fault of their own or end up homeless due to mental illness and lack of support from family. That is where the government should step in... Provide support and build people up so they can get back to work. We should all want to live in a safe society without poverty. And we should have compassion on the poor, that is biblical. No government will ever be perfect. But there is nothing wrong with trying. It's about BALANCE! A free economy with some government regulation where needed to ensure no one gets left behind. You don't need to raise taxes to do that. The government just needs to prioritize on what they spend on. Spend less on military, foreign aid, immigration, climate change, things outside of your own control.... and spend more on helping out your own citizens in your own country. Social assistance and focusing on issues in your own country is number one. So some government intervention is needed at times. It only becomes a problem when it is extreme and freedom is removed and corruption and control increases which leads to full-blown communism, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying have a healthy balance. Full-blown anarchic capitalism with no government intervention at all is also a disaster.

 

[Under One King]

They absolutely did cheat their community by lying to them. Cheating is a form of lying. Still, it doesn't change the fact that the Early Church under the Apostles' leadership practiced communal redistribution of wealth.

Do you think redistribution of wealth is evil? Do you think the Early Church and Christ's Apostles were evil for being Socialists??? Just say so. I certainly don't agree but you can have that opinion. But your opinion doesn't change the reality that they practiced an extreme form of socialism, practically communism.

They didn't cheat anything. They just lied. The thing is, no one was forced to do what they did. No one was obligated. But they did it willingly, because that is what Jesus would do, and that is what we should do. But we do it on a personal level, not a governmental level. No one is ever forced to do anything. You aren't forced to follow God. Everything is a choice.

 

[Under One King]

Why does a government exist? To ensure a safe and livable society. If the government never intervened there would be anarchy. Just as no one likes seeing crime on the streets, no one likes seeing homelessness and poverty on the streets either. People do their best to give, as Christians we are supposed to be on top of that. But it is not enough as the poverty issue is still prevalent as ever. Many homeless people are left stuck and without a choice. Many end up in that situation through no fault of their own or end up homeless due to mental illness and lack of support from family. That is where the government should step in... Provide support and build people up so they can get back to work. We should all want to live in a safe society without poverty. And we should have compassion on the poor, that is biblical. No government will ever be perfect. But there is nothing wrong with trying. It's about BALANCE! A free economy with some government regulation where needed to ensure no one gets left behind. You don't need to raise taxes to do that. The government just needs to prioritize on what they spend. Spend less on military, foreign aid, immigration, climate change, things outside of your own control.... and spend more on helping out your own citizens in your own country.

But this all stems from the belief that the government is supposed to take care of the citizens as if the citizens belong to the government. No. The government belongs to the people.

 

[Justified_By_Christ_Alone]

But this all stems from the belief that the government is supposed to take care of the citizens as if the citizens belong to the government. No. The government belongs to the people.

If you believe the government belongs to the people (which I agree with because we vote them in and pay taxes) then why wouldn't you want them to serve you and help you out in times of need?

 

[Under One King]

If you believe the government belongs to the people (which I agree with because we vote them in and pay taxes) then why wouldn't you want them to serve you and help you out in times of need?

Because then the government is no longer in the hands of the people, and the government starts to take charge, which is what has happened to our country's government. The government should not be in charge of the people.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

But this all stems from the belief that the government is supposed to take care of the citizens as if the citizens belong to the government. No. The government belongs to the people.

No, the belief that government is supposed to take care of the citizens stems from the beliefs of the individuals who make up our populace since we are the ones who decide who governs us. Since so many of us are Christians it only makes sense that we are going to apply those things from our Christian beliefs to how our government should govern us.

One of the biggest things regarding government for Christians is Romans 13, that government is a minister of God's Justice to us and we are to be subject to the authorities. Another huge belief for Christians is that we are to most help the least among us - the poor, the sick, the elderly, the widows and orphans, the homeless, etc. As the Early Church teaches us in God's Word, a good way to help the least among us is to contribute resources and then redistribute based on need. It only makes sense that Christians would want their government to practice this kind of behavior as God's Minister of His Justice to us.

How can those who need the Gospel hear it if they are hungry, or sick, or unclothed, or homeless??? As Christians we have a vested interest as God's Missionaries to make sure people are taken care of. Aside from our Mission of the Evangelizing, we also should have the love for others that Christ has for us, where we are willing to sacrifice greatly so that another person can live.

The lie is that all these Christian values are "communist" or otherwise bad, but God's Word is a sword that pierces those lies. All one has to do is read and believe His Word.

 

[Speedwell]

Because then the government is no longer in the hands of the people, and the government starts to take charge, which is what has happened to our country's government. The government should not be in charge of the people.

Do people the government helps out no longer have the right to vote?

 

[Under One King]

No, the belief that government is supposed to take care of the citizens stems from the beliefs of the individuals who make up our populace since we are the ones who decide who governs us. Since so many of us are Christians it only makes sense that we are going to apply those things from our Christian beliefs to how our government should govern us.

One of the biggest things regarding government for Christians is Romans 13, that government is a minister of God's Justice to us and we are to be subject to the authorities. Another huge belief for Christians is that we are to most help the least among us - the poor, the sick, the elderly, the widows and orphans, the homeless, etc. As the Early Church teaches us in God's Word, a good way to help the least among us is to contribute resources and then redistribute based on need. It only makes sense that Christians would want their government to practice this kind of behavior as God's Minister of His Justice to us.

How can those who need the Gospel hear it if they are hungry, or sick, or unclothed, or homeless??? As Christians we have a vested interest as God's Missionaries to make sure people are taken care of. Aside from our Mission of the Evangelizing, we also should have the love for others that Christ has for us, where we are willing to sacrifice greatly so that another person can live.

The lie is that all these Christian values are "communist" or otherwise bad, but God's Word is a sword that pierces those lies. All one has to do is read and believe His Word.

It is not the place of the government to do the Christian's job. I do not want the government to do my job, my duty as a Christian for me. It makes no sense.

 

[Under One King]

Do people the government helps out no longer have the right to vote?

Yes they have the right to vote, if they are American citizens. What does this even have to do with the topic?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

It is not the place of the government to do the Christian's job. I do not want the government to do my job, my duty as a Christian for me. It makes no sense.

It's the government's job to serve its people as a minister of God's Justice. As Christians we know what is right and what is wrong. Incorporating God's Righteousness into the government as much as possible because we the people have the right to do so is what we should do.

The alternative is to put a false idol, that God hates, named mammon above God Himself by treating the least among us as being worth less than mammon.

No man can serve two masters for he will love one and hate the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Saying "well we shouldn't be Christian in regards to the government" is simply saying that we ought to obey mammon over God. Sorry, I'm a Christian, I will never do that.

 

[Under One King]

It's the government's job to serve its people as a minister of God's Justice. As Christians we know what is right and what is wrong. Incorporating God's Righteousness into the government as much as possible because we the people have the right to do so is what we should do.

The alternative is to put a false idol, that God hates, named mammon above God Himself by treating the least among us as being worth less than mammon.

No man can serve two masters for he will love one and hate the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Saying "well we shouldn't be Christian in regards to the government" is simply saying that we ought to obey mammon over God. Sorry, I'm a Christian, I will never do that.

But when the government starts handing out money to the citizens, it starts to become like a master, which is what we see today. As citizens rely on the government for more and more, it becomes more and more powerful. And what powerful government is going to be very friendly to the Christian's?
Not having the government hand out money is not putting the poor below the value of money. The thing with a socialist form of government is, it takes everyone down to the level of the poor, instead of raising the poor up.
What the early church did is exactly how Christian communities should be today. But not the federal government.

 

[Francis Drake]

No, the belief that government is supposed to take care of the citizens stems from the beliefs of the individuals who make up our populace since we are the ones who decide who governs us.

It stems from the ungodly belief of individuals whose minds have been warped by their coveting of other people's property.

Since so many of us are Christians it only makes sense that we are going to apply those things from our Christian beliefs to how our government should govern us.

Political socialism stems from one of the most evil men ever born, whose intention was to enslave the planet, and destroy all knowledge of God. And you manage to attribute it to Christianity!!!

One of the biggest things regarding government for Christians is Romans 13, that government is a minister of God's Justice to us and we are to be subject to the authorities.

You think the world's first self declared atheist nation was set up by Christ. The very last thing the USSR, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics administered was God's justice. Likewise the National Socialist German Workers Party

Another huge belief for Christians is that we are to most help the least among us - the poor, the sick, the elderly, the widows and orphans, the homeless, etc. As the Early Church teaches us in God's Word, a good way to help the least among us is to contribute resources and then redistribute based on need.
It only makes sense that Christians would want their government to practice this kind of behavior as God's Minister of His Justice to us.

And as Peter made abundantly clear, every last bit of that was entirely voluntary, and nobody had a right to demand anyone's property to fulfil it. For the same reason throughout the rest of Acts and Paul's letters, we see that giving is always voluntary and never ever compelled.

How can those who need the Gospel hear it if they are hungry, or sick, or unclothed, or homeless???

Throughout the NT we see the gospel being preached to the hungry and homeless. The only evidence of them being fed directly is when Jesus multiplied the bread and fishes, but that was after the gospel was preached.

As Christians we have a vested interest as God's Missionaries to make sure people are taken care of. Aside from our Mission of the Evangelizing, we also should have the love for others that Christ has for us, where we are willing to sacrifice greatly so that another person can live.

The lie is that all these Christian values are "communist" or otherwise bad, but God's Word is a sword that pierces those lies. All one has to do is read and believe His Word.

The values you are teaching are so obviously communist and an anathema to the true Gospel message.

World history, past and present shows how the antichrist socialist philosophy has always resulted in destruction, deep poverty, and mass murder of its own citizenship, for every nation it has been visited on.

 

[Francis Drake]

Yes they have the right to vote, if they are American citizens. What does this even have to do with the topic?

In most socialist countries, once fully established, you still have the right to vote, but there's usually just one party!

 

[Albion]

In most socialist countries, once fully established, you still have the right to vote, but there's usually just one party!

Which is the edge on which we in the USA are standing right now. If Biden wins, that (one party for all intents and purposes) will most likely be what happens.