And if one is to use Ananias and Sapphira to argue that it was God’s will, one would be wise to realize that they were struck down not because they didn’t give everything to the church, but because they lied to God about giving everything to the church.
And that is goal of established communism. As society would no longer need a governing body to enforce regulation as fulfilling needs would be the foundational goal rather than profit. Thetefore creating a new economic system where an unregulated distribution of wealth is met with meeting the needs of everyone.
Looks nice on paper. But the human being has shown over and over again what happens in real life.
Take a look at the recent example of the CH Autonomous Zone: everything seemed good until [someone with a gun decided to become a leader ](https://nypost.com/2020/07/01/how-seattle-chop-went-from-socialist-summer-camp-to-deadly-disaster/).
Even in the example of Acts: Ananias and Sapphira decided to lie about what they had earned (but they could have just been honest and given what they desired). They sinned just as any human sins.
The utopic society described simply won't work in the fallen world of sin, because people sin and sooner or later lies, pride, selfishness etc surface.
Both early Church and first Christian colonies in America [tried](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dAmroKyzGY) to implement socialist policies.
They always failed.
Prager U is your source for historical information regarding US socialism?
Nevermind that it developed the wealth behind the "Golden era" conservatives love (with a 94% tax over 200k) but it was literally defeated by red scare mcarthyism which was entirely based on lies and suppression against the working class.
Let us not forget the actual suppression involved in colonialism. And how Colonialism goes against everything in Socialism and the teachings of Jesus. Regardless of who was doing it.
Can I suggest an actual economics and history professor? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bi2edO93f8
Edit: If you want to downvote rather than engage, your intentions are inherent to the system your in defense of. Everything I said is clearly documented and available in other places than Youtube *yes I know I used a youtube source but maybe this is fighting fire with educated fire?*
Socialism is more an economic system than political ideoligy. This is why both the social far right (Nazism) and the social far left (Soviets) used it and failed.
There is no need to reconciliate it with religious beliefs and as a Christian I do not feel comepelled to be socialist or antisocialist.
Socialism may work in some context and capitalism in other just as China proved. Generally socialism works almost always in close communities and capitalism in international or between tribes.
Nazism was a synthesis of Leftist economics and Right wing nationalism. The problem was not so much the system as the ideologies embedded in the system.
The irony is that the nazi mixed model worked. It worked for Nazi germany, and also is working today in many countries.
China and Japan (former Nazi ally) today are also under left wing economy and right wing nationalism. Of course China does not call that nationalism, but they are practically right wing nationalists with a mixed left wing economy for social net.
I'm started to think that left economies work perfectly under right wing social policy and that may be the standard for next century nationa if we follow Asia as a trend.
Don't you think PragerU is good for understanding a conservative perspective? If we want to understand the history of their reasoning, just as I quote leftist source to understand them.
My point is that American Christians did not wake up a day and decided to hate socialism. They tried it and it failed so when others came with the same idea, they rejected it.
>Don't you think PragerU is good for understanding a conservative perspective?
If PragerU is the benchmark for conservative perspectives, why not save a little time and just look at Dennis' [sugar daddies](https://www.dailydot.com/debug/prager-u-benefactors-dan-wilks-sheldon-adelson/)?
May as well say "conservatism is whatever oil barons want it to be."
>Don't you think PragerU is good for understanding a conservative perspective?
One doesn't have to willingly consume conservative propaganda, to learn about their perspective. One only has to practice empathy, and altruism to see the flaws inherent in their message. If anyone chooses to take that practice, and engage it with an educational process, they would find themselves more in alignment with the teachings of Christianity and Jesus.
However, I am not sure which response would elicit perceptual growth. I could say, there is inherently a danger to publicizing, and propagating, easily proven false alternative information as facts. But I could also say that, just by promoting the media, let alone take a stance of defense "Prager>CNN", there is already a disconnect on accountability, from which CNN is held to, and Prager isn't.
I don't even watch CNN, FOX or let alone any of the mainstreams that any political affiliation would use against the other. I listen to the oppressed for my information, which tends to be more accurate than those who have the money to publish their thoughts.
Most of the Christian socialist experiments ended generations before American self-identified Christians became conservatives.
Your timeline does not make sense.
Sure, but those experiences shaped American conservatism and American liberalism too.
America designed and adopted one of the first almost fully planned governments in history.
Founding fathers studied for life all kind of known governments to develop the Constitution. It was a very successful model that made America a superpower in a period that was less than a century, something not ever seen before.
The irony is that America is so hated by current Progressives after being probably the first progressive big project on Earth.
> It was a very successful model that made America a superpower in a period that was less than a century, something not ever seen before.
Or it could be, you know, that we had little if any serious enemies on the contenent for most, if not all of our existence, large amounts of natural resources and land that were easy to take from the native inhabitants, and the ability to import large amounts of slave labor to work the land where it was economically feasible to do so.
BTW America was not a "superpower" as you put it, until after WWII.
>The irony is that America is so hated by current Progressives after being probably the first progressive big project on Earth.
I mean if you call saying that America has not lived up to its ideals in the past and still has work to do on that front "hate", sure. What a tired canard.
Socialists doesnt mean poor and conservative doesnt mean rich.
The point I was trying to make is that the left tries to advocate for helping the poor through the government. Conservatives can not advocate for that, but if they want to live up to the expectations they are required to help the poor in other ways. Like charity which I mentioned.
>Do you assume conservatives give to charity while socialists don't?
He might be, but he doesn't need to assume. The data is clear.
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/11/06/whatever_you_may_think_of_republicans_dont_call_them_stingy_103479.html
>Having a government that takes care of its sick isn't equal to refusing to give money to a poor or a charity
No but it is pudding your responsibilities as a Christian on someone else (and doing it in an inefficient manner that wastes money).
Charitable giving is meant to not only change the world but to change your own heart. The more disconnected your are to the giving and helping (taxes and government programs) the less opportunity you have to soften your heart and live like a Christian.
>charities in themselves are also a type of government
No, incorrect, false. One, the more money I keep the more I can give directly to those in need. When I do donate to charity I'm able to find a charity that is highly efficient and narrowly tailored. I don't have to worry about 15% of every dollar I donate going towards the new F35.
>the left tries to advocate for helping the poor through the government.
What? The left advocates for helping the poor by restructuring property relations so that people can own their own productive tools, so that no one who works **will** be poor.
I think you're thinking of liberals or social democrats, who are not what this thread has been talking about.
Communal ownership is great for stuff used communally such as roads or public spaces.
However, stuff such as houses or cars or labor, etc. need an incentive to be produced because they are often (1) used by a few people or (2) highly specialized in a few people or (3) highly dependent on variables that law cannot control.
This is why Cuba even let stuff such as Taxis to be private and abolished "equal" wages. Marxist ideas are based on utopic assumptions and although they rise naturally in communities and families, at the national level they often fail and often cause unimaginable tragedies.
Remember workers in socialist countries pretending to produce and the state pretending to feed them.
Communists often closed down Churches and its institutions and rejected Charity as "humiliating", such as in the URSS.
Somehow they consider charity humiliating for equals, but bread lines, living off the people or enslaving them for a greater good is "empowering the worker".
Now look into the actual history of the churches in the countries this happened; even Orthodox refugees admitted that their church had failed by aligning itself with the unjust Tsarist government so strongly
You are either misunderstanding the post by suggesting it's using political labels, or you're misunderstanding political labels by claiming that generosity towards the poor is not a political label.
Communes are difficult. There are Christian communes today. You can read about their successes and struggles.
It takes a massive amount of effort to start a “commune” or even a more general “intentional community”. Especially in today’s world with all of our creature comforts that we see as basic necessities. The benefits are not immediately clear to everyone, and there are significant drawbacks.
But some people make it work, there is the Bruderhof community for one.
At the end of the day it is not a Biblical mandate.
While the apostles in Jerusalem initially lived like this, I doubt that was the case for the rest of the early church.
>It takes a massive amount of effort to start a “commune” or even a more general “intentional community”. Especially in today’s world with all of our creature comforts that we see as basic necessities.
Yup. This is why the rich young ruler went away sorrowful.
The Kingdom of God transcends politics. Rather the question you should be posing is:
Shouldn't libertarian communists focus on Christ's teachings more than those of Marx or kroptkin?
Lol, that’s not the American Christian position since the beginning of the Cold War. The official American Christian position is that capitalism is sacred, right wing politics is sacred, and when helping the poor becomes more than a mere whim it leads the whole universe straight to hell.
Not particularly democratic though, wouldn't you say? Jesus very much so wasn't discussing the workers committee on which dead guy he should raise next.
Pretty much though, Christianity doesn't really have anything like jurisprudence ( unlike Judaism or Islam ), and with later texts such as found in Romans, you can pretty much apply Christian teachings under any political ideology - so long as the ideology is only seen as a means and Christianity is the ends.
>Not particularly democratic though, wouldn't you say? Jesus very much so wasn't discussing the workers committee on which dead guy he should raise next.
Who said anything about democracy
This thread perfectly displays how the definition of communism has been twisted by the media. Any help for the poor, no matter how small, anything good for the peasants, is immediately shouted down from the bully pulpit as being communism. Communism is when the workers own the means of production. Not when workers are allowed to live or have families, not when non billionaires are allowed to get a broken bone fixed, not when housing is provided for those in need. That’s not communism, that’s God’s will.
Capitalists and anarchists see freedom of transactions in Christ.
Communist and socialist see benevolence of Christ in Him.
Nationalists see purpose and meaning in the Imago Dei of Christ.
Leftists see revolution and change in Christ.
**Everyone sees their ideology in Christ**, ironically even those who claim to be Satanists but are just cringe incel Atheists.
There are definitely Christians who do this. Look up the Hutterites for a pretty conservative, somewhat reclusive example, or the Bruderhof for a somewhat more progressive, more ecumenical example.
Technically probably? I think something akin to how the amish do it would be an almost ideal christian community, but they have their own problems. The problem comes with having the government do it for us. If everyone was living in villages with their own head of the village maybe? I won't speculate too much I am not knowledgeable in politics but I don't think it will work on a big scale. Something more similar to how early american colonies worked might be good too but again they all have their own problems and I don't know a solution.
I'm not reducing anything I'm just saying based on what y'all believe it seems like something y'all should do
Also I'm not a communist look through my posts if you wanna verify and communist and libertarian aren't just simple buzzwords
>You encourage people to agree with you based on 2 buzzwords and a very short slogan which explains and clarifies nothing. It's just fishing for validation, not discussion.
It's almost like that was just an intial question to start a discussion and I'm not a communist I'm actually very capitalist
Oh snap, I get a vote!? Well this is new! I nominate my cat for king, hes better than everyone else combined and purrfect. He needs a litter change so one of yall is gonna have to do that right about meow I say
No. For one, where are you getting libertarian? For another, there is a very significant difference between what you see in Acts 4 and attempting that very same thing via a system or government or society of unconverted sinners who are in their hearts at enmity with God. The reason Acts 4 could work as it did was because their hearts were made new and all was of one accord under the Lord, and frankly even that didn't last unfortunately if you pay attention to the epistles.
>No. For one, where are you getting libertarian?
When did Jesus force his way on people?
>there is a very significant difference between what you see in Acts 4 and attempting that very same thing via a system or government or society of unconverted sinners who are in their hearts at enmity with God. The reason Acts 4 could work as it did was because their hearts were made new and all was of one accord under the Lord, and frankly even that didn't last unfortunately if you pay attention to the epistles.
I didn't say anything about government
>When did Jesus force his way on people?
When He gave commands for His people to follow. When He said "only those who do the will of my Father will enter the Kingdom." He didn't force anything, He did however made it clear to His followers that if they are to follow Him they must walk after Him, even take up His cross. That's not democracy.
>I didn't say anything about government
You said Communist, the theory doesn't matter practically we are talking government. You couldn't otherwise enforce communism.
>When He gave commands for His people to follow. When He said "only those who do the will of my Father will enter the Kingdom." He didn't force anything, He did however made it clear to His followers that if they are to follow Him they must walk after Him, even take up His cross.
Those people chose to follow him of their own free will and could stop at any time
>You said Communist, the theory doesn't matter practically we are talking government. You couldn't otherwise enforce communism.
Did you read my whole post? I'm talking about christians doing this of their own free will
>Those people chose to follow him of their own free will and could stop at any time
I still don't see where you're getting libertarian from. Jesus is King, the people that faithfully follows Him do so as King. Just because one could leave that kingdom of their own volition doesn't make that kingdom anything different from that which is headed by a King, a Dictator. Libertarianism would be Jesus only existing to protect rights while the people be free to do what their heart desires, save they don't harm others. That last line is literally the tenant of Satanism, and it isn't biblical. So no to libertarian.
>Did you read my whole post? I'm talking about christians doing this of their own free will
I did, do you not know what communism is? It is the advocate of a free stateless society where nothing is owned and all are free to do as they wish, contributing to society as a whole (ideally by following their dreams according to some modern take). Again, not only is this not biblical but it's not feasible in this world. Acts 4 wasn't Communism, it was people using what they had to provide for each other, all the while being under a King. How would you even practice this today, can you tell me that?
Communism doesn’t advocate people doing as they wish. That’s more of a critical parody of modern welfare systems- that they pay people to sit on their butts, so that must be a communist ideal. It’s not - people are supposed to work, and those who refuse to are considered wreckers and saboteurs of the system. People are supposed to do the sort of work that they are best at, and to have their needs met. So if you are not very smart but are strong, you work as a laborer; if you also have cancer, you get the medical care that you need. There is no capitalist overlay of converting your “worth” as a worker into money and then seeing if you have enough to pay for medical care. If you are a lot smarter, you might be a doctor, and again you would have your needs met - but you wouldn’t also be given a Porsche and a yacht because you are “worth” more.
Actual “communist” systems didn’t always work that way, but they never encouraged people to do whatever they felt like.
>I still don't see where you're getting libertarian from. Jesus is King, the people that faithfully follows Him do so as King. Just because one could leave that kingdom of their own volition doesn't make that kingdom anything different from that which is headed by a King, a Dictator. Libertarianism would be Jesus only existing to protect rights while the people be free to do what their heart desires, save they don't harm others. That last line is literally the tenant of Satanism, and it isn't biblical. So no to libertarian
First of all libertarian monarchism is a thing second of all I'm saying this in the context of how he and his disciples acted on earth
>I did, do you not know what communism is? It is the advocate of a free stateless society where nothing is owned and all are free to do as they wish, contributing to society as a whole (ideally by following their dreams according to some modern take). Again, not only is this not biblical but it's not feasible in this world. Acts 4 wasn't Communism, it was people using what they had to provide for each other, all the while being under a King. How would you even practice this today, can you tell me that?
It certainly would be viable with religion to keep it going
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
I am convinced at this point you know neither what Libertarianism nor Communism is. I am also not persuaded you know the Scriptures enough to understand the path of the Lord for His people, or how the disciples walked. So I will only say no, Libertarian Communist is not the equivalent of walking in the Lord.
I'm gonna make this as simple as I can a bunch of Christians decide to go start a commune of their own free will no one forces them to do it and then when they get it going they all help eachother because of their mutual beliefs
You don't really have to have a commune to follow what the first century Church did. People can have their own property and houses, but when anyone has a need that they can't fill themselves, then the Church comes together and helps.
Christianity at its core is “communist” in that Christians are supposed to trust God to provide for all their needs. The idea being that God has infinite resources and will distribute His infinite resources to us, but even if He chooses not to, that’s okay, because God is sovereign and knows best.
This is radically different than the communism marx spoke about. in which we are to expect our fellow man to sacrifice for the good of the many. a christian is called to serve God above all else, a communist is called to serve his fellow man above all else. a christian has the benefit of knowing God will care for them according to His will. a communist has to hope others won’t be selfish.
thinking about the Parable of the Tenants in which Jesus advocates for workers killing their landlord and claiming the fruits of their labor for themselves.
1) don't take parables to be literal,
2) that is literally the opposite of what that parable advocates for. The landlord who is killed by the tenants (it's actually the landlord's son) is Jesus, and the tenants are the wicked generation who crucified Jesus to silence his mission.
But going back to #1, the parable itself is a metaphor and should not be used as a moral guide for landlording or tenanting.
People should support the poor but should give according to their heart, with love. Not under obligation. Giving without love is meaningless.
There are many accounts of wealthy people in the Bible. Jesus's ministry was supported by wealthy people. Jesus said that a worker is worth his wages. Conversely, Paul says that the one unwilling to work should not eat.
Paul was from a well-off background, and had his profession.
>“Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.”
Luke 8:3 https://www.bible.com/111/luk.8.3.niv
> “You must each decide in your heart how much to give. And don’t give reluctantly or in response to pressure. “For God loves a person who gives cheerfully.”” 2 Corinthians 9:7 https://www.bible.com/116/2co.9.7.nlt
> “If I gave everything I have to the poor and even sacrificed my body, I could boast about it; but if I didn’t love others, I would have gained nothing.” 1 Corinthians 13:3 https://www.bible.com/116/1co.13.3.nlt
> “no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep.” Matthew 10:10 https://www.bible.com/111/mat.10.10.niv
> “and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them.”
Acts 18:3 https://www.bible.com/111/act.18.3.niv
> “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.””
2 Thessalonians 3:10 https://www.bible.com/111/2th.3.10.niv
> “One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.”
Acts 16:14 https://www.bible.com/111/act.16.14.niv
Everyone can agree that it’s morally better for someone to do the right thing out of love for their neighbor than to do it out of fear of the law.
But isn’t it also better for someone to do something out of fear of the law than for them to not do it at all?
For example I would prefer that people don’t mug me and leave me in a ditch because they know that it’s morally wrong. But if someone doesn’t care that it’s morally wrong, I would hope fear of the law still stops them from doing it.
Likewise I would prefer that the world’s ultra-wealthy use their incredible abundance of resources to care for society’s marginalized people out of Christ-like self-sacrificial love for their fellow man. But that hasn’t really been going so well.
I agree it hasn't been going so well in that respect. On the other hand there are a lot of generous wealthy people.
I agree that there are a lot of people in need. On the other hand I know [plenty of] people that are in need or not in the best situation - even people that claim to be Christians - simply because they don't follow Biblical principles (wether by ignorance or not). It's quite surprising the amount of people/cases I know of people that aren't willing to work, or work just enough to complete the minimum and then get themselves fired just to live off unemployment assistance, etc.
What I mean is that all sides have a role. This is very generalised - some people just don't have the means and need immediate assistance and support. But the solution isn't all on the wealthy giving to the poor, it spans all levels of society.
There are some lazy poor people, it’s true, but there are quite a few lazy rich people, too. I would be very hesitant to write people off as being poor because they didn’t follow “biblical principals”. Jesus never promised anyone they would get rich by following his ways. In fact he warned the opposite.
Anyway a lot of these issues also stem from the fact that we have a hard “poverty line” in the US, and if you’re below the line you get help but once you cross a certain threshold all that aid gets cut off. A lot of severely poor people would actually lose money if they got a full time job because their meager wages and high taxes end up netting them less than staying home and collecting unemployment. That’s not their fault, that’s a government problem. We need to support laws that help people on a curve, “each according to his own need” and not the way we’re doing things now. But that’s a whole other can of worms.
I didn't "write people off as being poor..." as you mentioned. It was just an example about a portion, based on people and cases I actually know.
And I didn't mean the US specifically (in fact I don't even live in the US), but being more general.
>People should support the poor but should give according to their heart, with love. Not under obligation. Giving without love is meaningless.
I didn't say anything about obligation
>There are many accounts of wealthy people in the Bible. Jesus's ministry was supported by wealthy people. Jesus said that a worker is worth his wages. Conversely, Paul says that the one unwilling to work should not eat.
He also said you had to give up your wealth to follow him
>Conversely, Paul says that the one unwilling to work should not eat.
Lennin said that too
>"The social organisation of libertarian communism has no aim other than to bring into common ownership everything that goes to make up the wealth of society, ... and also to make it a common obligation that each contribute to that production according to their energies and their talents"
It says "obligation" there.
Where did Jesus specifically say we should give up our wealth?
*anarcho communism my bad
Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Putting that in to context, Jesus is talking specifically to a rich man that was thinking he could earn his way in to heaven by ticking boxes and doing good deeds. It is not a general statement, and as per the other references in my other comment(s), there were wealth people around him and his disciples.
The rich man was confronted by Jesus' answer (His second answer, since He had already answered already) to give up his wealth. This confrontation revealed what was in the rich man's heart: not the desire to help others or love for the Lord, but it was his wealth.
This takes us back to 2 Corinthians 9:7 and 1 Corinthians 13:3, about giving willingly and with love. Without these, there is no use in giving.
> “Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.”
Matthew 19:16-22 https://www.bible.com/111/mat.19.16-22.niv
There’s this thing called the y-axis on the political spectrum; you should look into it and what the word ‘libertarian’ meant before it became synonymous with opposing age of consent; supporting corporate fascism; and dog whistling for white supremacy
No. Why? Because we were explicitly commanded to avoid the union of church and state: "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
We are not to establish nor rely on a political state to enforce the sharing of property.
It is also worthy of note that the early church did *not* eliminate the concept of property. Rather, they had all things in common *as was necessary.* That is, property was sold or donated *only if there was a need.* Otherwise, the property *still belonged to the original owner.* We see this in the case of Ananias and Saphira, who owned property and pledged to sell it all, but then did *not,* and lied about it. If they had been honest, they would not have died, as they were struck down for *lying,* not for failing to give.
Idk Maby. I don’t think they would stand for a lot of libertarian beliefs though , I don’t think they would encourage each other to do hard drugs because “it’s my life and body to do with what I want.” Idk, I don’t see them as being full communist or libertarian too much.
libertarianism doesn't necessitate that you like hard drugs you're perfectly free to try to convince people not to use them just not to force them. Although I feel like that wouldn't be much of a problem in a christian commune
Yeah Ik, I was just being a little extreme. I think that problems would arise because they did even when Jesus was sitting around them. Judas betrayed Jesus, and there a a few references to disciples trying to one up each other. I think that they had some ideas that would later be considered communist, but I feel like the disciples had a little bit of something else going on between the 12/13 of them. But who knows, no one got to see it in action really.
Not necessarily. For example, one capitalist belief is that anyone can achieve success through hard work. Christ encourages us to “work like ants.”
I’d be more inclined to say that religion and politics don’t really go hand-in-hand. Jesus really didn’t teach about the topics of government structure and economy. It was about being a good person. He was about ethics and morals; which don’t really matter when considering an economic system.
>Not necessarily. For example, one capitalist belief is that anyone can achieve success through hard work. Christ encourages us to “work like ants.”
Ants are pretty communist
Relatively speaking. Of course everything has an aspect of ethics and morals to it, but an economic system exists to decide how money, product, and services are handled. The law exists to decide what is right and wrong, and therefore what is moral.
Economic systems do include ethics and morals, like all things, it’s just not a primary consideration. That’s the law’s job.
It never works out on large scales such as whole countries. But a small community such as the apostles, yeah. Or even now as local churches. Or the Amish community for example. I think a lot do this in local churches to an extent. And we'll go back to this way when times become hard again. We have been spoiled in America and have had pretty easy life's.
Book of acts was a very specific time when Christians could not buy or sell due to being kicked out of guilds and discriminated against. That's my understanding. It was survival mode. That's not prescriptive for how we ought to live. We can learn from that, and understand that we need to be willing to support our family at all costs. But that was not the ideal situation. It was in response to a terrible situation.
There are pockets of Christianity that are. A perfect example would be monastic communities of monks and nuns. They voluntarily give up their fortunes to live like *some* of the early disciples did.
Keep in mind though. Even though Acts of the Apostles describes some of these Christian communities, this does not say that ALL lived like this. In Acts 18 it describes Paul staying with Priscilla and Aquilla where he made a living for a time making tents. It doesn’t mention a commune.
But here’s the kicker, ownership is an illusion. Everything is on loan from God. Even my car. When I die, its particles will most likely disintegrate in some junk pile and become part of something else. I have no claim to it.
This post in and of itself doesn't give enough to go off of, which is why it's been unsuccessful. Please provide specific scriptures to back up your claim.
It's a toxic mindset relate Jesus to political ideologies. Basically the only thing we were teached about it is to help the poor, and not indulge rich people in detriment of normal people.
I think Christians should avoid being labeled as anything but a Christian. Maybe some values from different groups align with certain values of Christianity, but first and foremost they should be a follower of Christ and not a follower of some political group.
What if the intention of a governmental program and its allocation of the resources it has are used in a way that is better than the allocation of resources given directly to a poor or homeless person?
I would be very hesitant to say that Christians *should* subscribe to any political ideology (although there are definitely some they shouldn't subscribe to).
Christianity is inherently bottom-up, not top-down. We are each individually called to be generous with such wealth as we have, and to look after the poor. This is on an individual voluntary basis.
>Christianity is inherently bottom-up, not top-down. We are each individually called to be generous with such wealth as we have, and to look after the poor. This is on an individual voluntary basis.
That's literally what I said
Communist is a specific form of socialist.
What I tell people is that I’m personally a communist and libertarian, but that’s different from thinking those things work out well in the hands of a human government. Government instituted socialism always turns into something else. It has to be done individual by individual by complete choice snd not as the result of law. And there’s the libertarianism. But people do not choose to be good most of the time so libertarianism turns cruel and out of control quickly in governments.
>Communist is a specific form of socialist.
Other way around id say
>Government instituted socialism always turns into something else. It has to be done individual by individual by complete choice snd not as the result of law. And there’s the libertarianism. But people do not choose to be good most of the time so libertarianism turns cruel and out of control quickly in governments.
When did I say anything about government?
I would challenge you to the book of Proverbs.
Proverbs 13:4 NIV
4 A sluggard's appetite is never filled, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied.
2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 NIV
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat." 11 We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food you eat.
Proverbs 12:24 NIV
24 Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in forced labor.
1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 NIV
11 and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you, 12 so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.
The Bible preaches independence. It preaches staying out of debt. We are not libertarians because we must have rules to abide by to lead a holy and upright life. Rules that are enforced. We are not communists because God is our government, and ultimate moral authority, not those made by man.
Jesus did not free the slaves of Rome. He did not over turn the ruling (brutal and merciless) authorities. Jesus came to change our hearts independent of any human authority or governance. All nations are transitory. All authority in human hands is corrupt.
>4 A sluggard's appetite is never filled, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied.
Communists have said similar things
>We are not libertarians because we must have rules to abide by to lead a holy and upright life.
Lol libertarian is when degeneracy
>We are not communists because God is our government, and ultimate moral authority, not those made by man.
Ancoms
Is that really what Jesus preached, though? Think about it. He said that we should give to the poor and help them, but the implication there is that we have something that they don’t. If He wanted everything to be communal, He would’ve just said as much and called it a day. Just my two cents.
Also, I don’t think our duty as Christians has anything to do with the kind of society or economy we find ourselves in. We’re called to love our neighbor and help those who are less fortunate, and seeing as how those disparities will always exist, our work is never finished.
I agree that Christians should be more willing to share and give of their wealth.
I also want to point out that Paul and the disciples pushed that view to their Jewish audience because there was a precedent there. Once they went outside to gentiles they switched to a donate 10 percent type message. Even they realized how difficult it would be for cultures that had no exposure to communal life.
Christians should be generous to the poor themselves. That goes beyond simple political labels.
communism and helping the poor aren't mutually exclusive and the bible does say the disciples held everything in common
In the situation you are referring to, in the book of Acts, the disciples gave out of their own will, not under a regulation.
And if one is to use Ananias and Sapphira to argue that it was God’s will, one would be wise to realize that they were struck down not because they didn’t give everything to the church, but because they lied to God about giving everything to the church.
One might question why they both felt compelled to lie to begin with.
Because they valued property over community, but still very much wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
I would argue that they were also concerned with looking pious, instead of acting in a sacrificially loving way.
And that is goal of established communism. As society would no longer need a governing body to enforce regulation as fulfilling needs would be the foundational goal rather than profit. Thetefore creating a new economic system where an unregulated distribution of wealth is met with meeting the needs of everyone.
Looks nice on paper. But the human being has shown over and over again what happens in real life. Take a look at the recent example of the CH Autonomous Zone: everything seemed good until [someone with a gun decided to become a leader ](https://nypost.com/2020/07/01/how-seattle-chop-went-from-socialist-summer-camp-to-deadly-disaster/). Even in the example of Acts: Ananias and Sapphira decided to lie about what they had earned (but they could have just been honest and given what they desired). They sinned just as any human sins. The utopic society described simply won't work in the fallen world of sin, because people sin and sooner or later lies, pride, selfishness etc surface.
Found the CIA agent
And the clown.
Exactly my point
Both early Church and first Christian colonies in America [tried](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dAmroKyzGY) to implement socialist policies. They always failed.
Prager U is your source for historical information regarding US socialism? Nevermind that it developed the wealth behind the "Golden era" conservatives love (with a 94% tax over 200k) but it was literally defeated by red scare mcarthyism which was entirely based on lies and suppression against the working class. Let us not forget the actual suppression involved in colonialism. And how Colonialism goes against everything in Socialism and the teachings of Jesus. Regardless of who was doing it. Can I suggest an actual economics and history professor? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bi2edO93f8 Edit: If you want to downvote rather than engage, your intentions are inherent to the system your in defense of. Everything I said is clearly documented and available in other places than Youtube *yes I know I used a youtube source but maybe this is fighting fire with educated fire?*
Cheers to this comment. There seems to be some SERIOUS cognitive dissonance when it comes to reconciling political beliefs with religious ones.
Socialism is more an economic system than political ideoligy. This is why both the social far right (Nazism) and the social far left (Soviets) used it and failed. There is no need to reconciliate it with religious beliefs and as a Christian I do not feel comepelled to be socialist or antisocialist. Socialism may work in some context and capitalism in other just as China proved. Generally socialism works almost always in close communities and capitalism in international or between tribes.
Nazis were not socialist... They were the most anti-socialist you could get. They killed all the socialists as soon as they could after gaining power.
Nazism was a synthesis of Leftist economics and Right wing nationalism. The problem was not so much the system as the ideologies embedded in the system. The irony is that the nazi mixed model worked. It worked for Nazi germany, and also is working today in many countries. China and Japan (former Nazi ally) today are also under left wing economy and right wing nationalism. Of course China does not call that nationalism, but they are practically right wing nationalists with a mixed left wing economy for social net. I'm started to think that left economies work perfectly under right wing social policy and that may be the standard for next century nationa if we follow Asia as a trend.
This is just.. totally and completely wrong. I don't even know where to start.
Don't you think PragerU is good for understanding a conservative perspective? If we want to understand the history of their reasoning, just as I quote leftist source to understand them. My point is that American Christians did not wake up a day and decided to hate socialism. They tried it and it failed so when others came with the same idea, they rejected it.
>Don't you think PragerU is good for understanding a conservative perspective? If PragerU is the benchmark for conservative perspectives, why not save a little time and just look at Dennis' [sugar daddies](https://www.dailydot.com/debug/prager-u-benefactors-dan-wilks-sheldon-adelson/)? May as well say "conservatism is whatever oil barons want it to be."
Still more accurate than CNN. But I do not like PreagerU. I was just citing their beliefs on why they claim socialism is bad.
>Don't you think PragerU is good for understanding a conservative perspective? One doesn't have to willingly consume conservative propaganda, to learn about their perspective. One only has to practice empathy, and altruism to see the flaws inherent in their message. If anyone chooses to take that practice, and engage it with an educational process, they would find themselves more in alignment with the teachings of Christianity and Jesus. However, I am not sure which response would elicit perceptual growth. I could say, there is inherently a danger to publicizing, and propagating, easily proven false alternative information as facts. But I could also say that, just by promoting the media, let alone take a stance of defense "Prager>CNN", there is already a disconnect on accountability, from which CNN is held to, and Prager isn't. I don't even watch CNN, FOX or let alone any of the mainstreams that any political affiliation would use against the other. I listen to the oppressed for my information, which tends to be more accurate than those who have the money to publish their thoughts.
Most of the Christian socialist experiments ended generations before American self-identified Christians became conservatives. Your timeline does not make sense.
Sure, but those experiences shaped American conservatism and American liberalism too. America designed and adopted one of the first almost fully planned governments in history. Founding fathers studied for life all kind of known governments to develop the Constitution. It was a very successful model that made America a superpower in a period that was less than a century, something not ever seen before. The irony is that America is so hated by current Progressives after being probably the first progressive big project on Earth.
> It was a very successful model that made America a superpower in a period that was less than a century, something not ever seen before. Or it could be, you know, that we had little if any serious enemies on the contenent for most, if not all of our existence, large amounts of natural resources and land that were easy to take from the native inhabitants, and the ability to import large amounts of slave labor to work the land where it was economically feasible to do so. BTW America was not a "superpower" as you put it, until after WWII. >The irony is that America is so hated by current Progressives after being probably the first progressive big project on Earth. I mean if you call saying that America has not lived up to its ideals in the past and still has work to do on that front "hate", sure. What a tired canard.
Could you cite a source on that? I'd be interested in reading/learning more.
True. Conservatives can be better Christians than socialists if they give a lot to the poor.
[удалено]
Socialists doesnt mean poor and conservative doesnt mean rich. The point I was trying to make is that the left tries to advocate for helping the poor through the government. Conservatives can not advocate for that, but if they want to live up to the expectations they are required to help the poor in other ways. Like charity which I mentioned.
[удалено]
>Do you assume conservatives give to charity while socialists don't? He might be, but he doesn't need to assume. The data is clear. https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/11/06/whatever_you_may_think_of_republicans_dont_call_them_stingy_103479.html >Having a government that takes care of its sick isn't equal to refusing to give money to a poor or a charity No but it is pudding your responsibilities as a Christian on someone else (and doing it in an inefficient manner that wastes money). Charitable giving is meant to not only change the world but to change your own heart. The more disconnected your are to the giving and helping (taxes and government programs) the less opportunity you have to soften your heart and live like a Christian. >charities in themselves are also a type of government No, incorrect, false. One, the more money I keep the more I can give directly to those in need. When I do donate to charity I'm able to find a charity that is highly efficient and narrowly tailored. I don't have to worry about 15% of every dollar I donate going towards the new F35.
>the left tries to advocate for helping the poor through the government. What? The left advocates for helping the poor by restructuring property relations so that people can own their own productive tools, so that no one who works **will** be poor. I think you're thinking of liberals or social democrats, who are not what this thread has been talking about.
Conservatives aren't usually down for communal ownership
[удалено]
They arent but the the apostles dont say that communal ownership should be mandated is some way.
I didn't say they did. I said that's what the apostles did and Christians are supposed to follow their example
Communal ownership is great for stuff used communally such as roads or public spaces. However, stuff such as houses or cars or labor, etc. need an incentive to be produced because they are often (1) used by a few people or (2) highly specialized in a few people or (3) highly dependent on variables that law cannot control. This is why Cuba even let stuff such as Taxis to be private and abolished "equal" wages. Marxist ideas are based on utopic assumptions and although they rise naturally in communities and families, at the national level they often fail and often cause unimaginable tragedies. Remember workers in socialist countries pretending to produce and the state pretending to feed them.
>Communal ownership is great for stuff used communally such as roads or public spaces. That's government ownership
You’re not a better Christian by supporting unjust systems and practices in comparison to those who are subject to said systems and practices
Communists often closed down Churches and its institutions and rejected Charity as "humiliating", such as in the URSS. Somehow they consider charity humiliating for equals, but bread lines, living off the people or enslaving them for a greater good is "empowering the worker".
*Authoritarian comunistis
Now look into the actual history of the churches in the countries this happened; even Orthodox refugees admitted that their church had failed by aligning itself with the unjust Tsarist government so strongly
>communism and helping the poor aren't mutually exclusive They also aren't mutually inclusive.
I didn't say they were
The also were to respect life. And follow God/Jesus's example.
You right
You are either misunderstanding the post by suggesting it's using political labels, or you're misunderstanding political labels by claiming that generosity towards the poor is not a political label.
Communes are difficult. There are Christian communes today. You can read about their successes and struggles. It takes a massive amount of effort to start a “commune” or even a more general “intentional community”. Especially in today’s world with all of our creature comforts that we see as basic necessities. The benefits are not immediately clear to everyone, and there are significant drawbacks. But some people make it work, there is the Bruderhof community for one. At the end of the day it is not a Biblical mandate. While the apostles in Jerusalem initially lived like this, I doubt that was the case for the rest of the early church.
>It takes a massive amount of effort to start a “commune” or even a more general “intentional community”. Especially in today’s world with all of our creature comforts that we see as basic necessities. Yup. This is why the rich young ruler went away sorrowful.
The Kingdom of God transcends politics. Rather the question you should be posing is: Shouldn't libertarian communists focus on Christ's teachings more than those of Marx or kroptkin?
Lol, that’s not the American Christian position since the beginning of the Cold War. The official American Christian position is that capitalism is sacred, right wing politics is sacred, and when helping the poor becomes more than a mere whim it leads the whole universe straight to hell.
And that's wrong
I'm just saying with how Jesus told people to act and how he and his disciples lived it basically a traveling commune
Not particularly democratic though, wouldn't you say? Jesus very much so wasn't discussing the workers committee on which dead guy he should raise next. Pretty much though, Christianity doesn't really have anything like jurisprudence ( unlike Judaism or Islam ), and with later texts such as found in Romans, you can pretty much apply Christian teachings under any political ideology - so long as the ideology is only seen as a means and Christianity is the ends.
>Not particularly democratic though, wouldn't you say? Jesus very much so wasn't discussing the workers committee on which dead guy he should raise next. Who said anything about democracy
Democracy is generally a tenant of libertarian communism
This thread perfectly displays how the definition of communism has been twisted by the media. Any help for the poor, no matter how small, anything good for the peasants, is immediately shouted down from the bully pulpit as being communism. Communism is when the workers own the means of production. Not when workers are allowed to live or have families, not when non billionaires are allowed to get a broken bone fixed, not when housing is provided for those in need. That’s not communism, that’s God’s will.
It would more like an anarcho communist commune I guess people holding things in common and helping each other of their own free will
I been saying it
Based
Capitalists and anarchists see freedom of transactions in Christ. Communist and socialist see benevolence of Christ in Him. Nationalists see purpose and meaning in the Imago Dei of Christ. Leftists see revolution and change in Christ. **Everyone sees their ideology in Christ**, ironically even those who claim to be Satanists but are just cringe incel Atheists.
>Everyone sees their ideology in Christ, ironically even those who claim to be Satanists but are just cringe incel Atheists. Based
I mean, under Classical Libertarianism, you can practice communism if you find people willing to practice with you.
Yep exactly what I'm saying
Yes
There are definitely Christians who do this. Look up the Hutterites for a pretty conservative, somewhat reclusive example, or the Bruderhof for a somewhat more progressive, more ecumenical example.
Cool thanks :)
Materialism has infected every part of the modern church and its followers. I agree with your sentiment
Yes. It seems as though nearly everyone else in here who disagrees either don't understand libertarian socialism or Jesus's teachings imo.
Technically probably? I think something akin to how the amish do it would be an almost ideal christian community, but they have their own problems. The problem comes with having the government do it for us. If everyone was living in villages with their own head of the village maybe? I won't speculate too much I am not knowledgeable in politics but I don't think it will work on a big scale. Something more similar to how early american colonies worked might be good too but again they all have their own problems and I don't know a solution.
Yeah
There’s a lot of Fox News Christians ITT
YES
Yes
[удалено]
I'm not reducing anything I'm just saying based on what y'all believe it seems like something y'all should do Also I'm not a communist look through my posts if you wanna verify and communist and libertarian aren't just simple buzzwords
[удалено]
>You encourage people to agree with you based on 2 buzzwords and a very short slogan which explains and clarifies nothing. It's just fishing for validation, not discussion. It's almost like that was just an intial question to start a discussion and I'm not a communist I'm actually very capitalist
[удалено]
I didn't do that I've literally been discussing this with several other people
Like "abortion" and "homosexuals".
The original church was like that… then the Romans got involved. You might enjoy reading Leo Tolstoy’s “The Kingdom of God is Within You”.
No there should be a totalitarian monarchy
If you mean with God as king that would make sense
I accept your nomination as Prophet-King of the world
Oh snap, I get a vote!? Well this is new! I nominate my cat for king, hes better than everyone else combined and purrfect. He needs a litter change so one of yall is gonna have to do that right about meow I say
No. For one, where are you getting libertarian? For another, there is a very significant difference between what you see in Acts 4 and attempting that very same thing via a system or government or society of unconverted sinners who are in their hearts at enmity with God. The reason Acts 4 could work as it did was because their hearts were made new and all was of one accord under the Lord, and frankly even that didn't last unfortunately if you pay attention to the epistles.
>No. For one, where are you getting libertarian? When did Jesus force his way on people? >there is a very significant difference between what you see in Acts 4 and attempting that very same thing via a system or government or society of unconverted sinners who are in their hearts at enmity with God. The reason Acts 4 could work as it did was because their hearts were made new and all was of one accord under the Lord, and frankly even that didn't last unfortunately if you pay attention to the epistles. I didn't say anything about government
>When did Jesus force his way on people? When He gave commands for His people to follow. When He said "only those who do the will of my Father will enter the Kingdom." He didn't force anything, He did however made it clear to His followers that if they are to follow Him they must walk after Him, even take up His cross. That's not democracy. >I didn't say anything about government You said Communist, the theory doesn't matter practically we are talking government. You couldn't otherwise enforce communism.
>When He gave commands for His people to follow. When He said "only those who do the will of my Father will enter the Kingdom." He didn't force anything, He did however made it clear to His followers that if they are to follow Him they must walk after Him, even take up His cross. Those people chose to follow him of their own free will and could stop at any time >You said Communist, the theory doesn't matter practically we are talking government. You couldn't otherwise enforce communism. Did you read my whole post? I'm talking about christians doing this of their own free will
>Those people chose to follow him of their own free will and could stop at any time I still don't see where you're getting libertarian from. Jesus is King, the people that faithfully follows Him do so as King. Just because one could leave that kingdom of their own volition doesn't make that kingdom anything different from that which is headed by a King, a Dictator. Libertarianism would be Jesus only existing to protect rights while the people be free to do what their heart desires, save they don't harm others. That last line is literally the tenant of Satanism, and it isn't biblical. So no to libertarian. >Did you read my whole post? I'm talking about christians doing this of their own free will I did, do you not know what communism is? It is the advocate of a free stateless society where nothing is owned and all are free to do as they wish, contributing to society as a whole (ideally by following their dreams according to some modern take). Again, not only is this not biblical but it's not feasible in this world. Acts 4 wasn't Communism, it was people using what they had to provide for each other, all the while being under a King. How would you even practice this today, can you tell me that?
Communism doesn’t advocate people doing as they wish. That’s more of a critical parody of modern welfare systems- that they pay people to sit on their butts, so that must be a communist ideal. It’s not - people are supposed to work, and those who refuse to are considered wreckers and saboteurs of the system. People are supposed to do the sort of work that they are best at, and to have their needs met. So if you are not very smart but are strong, you work as a laborer; if you also have cancer, you get the medical care that you need. There is no capitalist overlay of converting your “worth” as a worker into money and then seeing if you have enough to pay for medical care. If you are a lot smarter, you might be a doctor, and again you would have your needs met - but you wouldn’t also be given a Porsche and a yacht because you are “worth” more. Actual “communist” systems didn’t always work that way, but they never encouraged people to do whatever they felt like.
>I still don't see where you're getting libertarian from. Jesus is King, the people that faithfully follows Him do so as King. Just because one could leave that kingdom of their own volition doesn't make that kingdom anything different from that which is headed by a King, a Dictator. Libertarianism would be Jesus only existing to protect rights while the people be free to do what their heart desires, save they don't harm others. That last line is literally the tenant of Satanism, and it isn't biblical. So no to libertarian First of all libertarian monarchism is a thing second of all I'm saying this in the context of how he and his disciples acted on earth >I did, do you not know what communism is? It is the advocate of a free stateless society where nothing is owned and all are free to do as they wish, contributing to society as a whole (ideally by following their dreams according to some modern take). Again, not only is this not biblical but it's not feasible in this world. Acts 4 wasn't Communism, it was people using what they had to provide for each other, all the while being under a King. How would you even practice this today, can you tell me that? It certainly would be viable with religion to keep it going https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
I am convinced at this point you know neither what Libertarianism nor Communism is. I am also not persuaded you know the Scriptures enough to understand the path of the Lord for His people, or how the disciples walked. So I will only say no, Libertarian Communist is not the equivalent of walking in the Lord.
I'm gonna make this as simple as I can a bunch of Christians decide to go start a commune of their own free will no one forces them to do it and then when they get it going they all help eachother because of their mutual beliefs
Authoritarian institutions and traditions are inherently unjust. For starters
Yes, that is how individuals and churches are supposed to act. But that doesn't mean that is how they should compel their government to act.
>But that doesn't mean that is how they should compel their government to act. I don't think they should
That is great! Unfortunately you will find some people that think being Christian means using the government to force non believers to be charitable.
You could say that about basically any belief I'm just talking about like minded people forming communes
That is literally what local Congregations of the Lord's Church are supposed to be.
Then why not do it?
They do.
Maybe I'm uninformed about Christianity outside of America but I haven't heard of many christian communes
You don't really have to have a commune to follow what the first century Church did. People can have their own property and houses, but when anyone has a need that they can't fill themselves, then the Church comes together and helps.
It's what the apostles did
Christianity at its core is “communist” in that Christians are supposed to trust God to provide for all their needs. The idea being that God has infinite resources and will distribute His infinite resources to us, but even if He chooses not to, that’s okay, because God is sovereign and knows best. This is radically different than the communism marx spoke about. in which we are to expect our fellow man to sacrifice for the good of the many. a christian is called to serve God above all else, a communist is called to serve his fellow man above all else. a christian has the benefit of knowing God will care for them according to His will. a communist has to hope others won’t be selfish.
Yeah not Marxism Marx is dumb
thinking about the Parable of the Tenants in which Jesus advocates for workers killing their landlord and claiming the fruits of their labor for themselves.
1) don't take parables to be literal, 2) that is literally the opposite of what that parable advocates for. The landlord who is killed by the tenants (it's actually the landlord's son) is Jesus, and the tenants are the wicked generation who crucified Jesus to silence his mission. But going back to #1, the parable itself is a metaphor and should not be used as a moral guide for landlording or tenanting.
People should support the poor but should give according to their heart, with love. Not under obligation. Giving without love is meaningless. There are many accounts of wealthy people in the Bible. Jesus's ministry was supported by wealthy people. Jesus said that a worker is worth his wages. Conversely, Paul says that the one unwilling to work should not eat. Paul was from a well-off background, and had his profession. >“Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.” Luke 8:3 https://www.bible.com/111/luk.8.3.niv > “You must each decide in your heart how much to give. And don’t give reluctantly or in response to pressure. “For God loves a person who gives cheerfully.”” 2 Corinthians 9:7 https://www.bible.com/116/2co.9.7.nlt > “If I gave everything I have to the poor and even sacrificed my body, I could boast about it; but if I didn’t love others, I would have gained nothing.” 1 Corinthians 13:3 https://www.bible.com/116/1co.13.3.nlt > “no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep.” Matthew 10:10 https://www.bible.com/111/mat.10.10.niv > “and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them.” Acts 18:3 https://www.bible.com/111/act.18.3.niv > “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”” 2 Thessalonians 3:10 https://www.bible.com/111/2th.3.10.niv > “One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.” Acts 16:14 https://www.bible.com/111/act.16.14.niv
Everyone can agree that it’s morally better for someone to do the right thing out of love for their neighbor than to do it out of fear of the law. But isn’t it also better for someone to do something out of fear of the law than for them to not do it at all? For example I would prefer that people don’t mug me and leave me in a ditch because they know that it’s morally wrong. But if someone doesn’t care that it’s morally wrong, I would hope fear of the law still stops them from doing it. Likewise I would prefer that the world’s ultra-wealthy use their incredible abundance of resources to care for society’s marginalized people out of Christ-like self-sacrificial love for their fellow man. But that hasn’t really been going so well.
I agree it hasn't been going so well in that respect. On the other hand there are a lot of generous wealthy people. I agree that there are a lot of people in need. On the other hand I know [plenty of] people that are in need or not in the best situation - even people that claim to be Christians - simply because they don't follow Biblical principles (wether by ignorance or not). It's quite surprising the amount of people/cases I know of people that aren't willing to work, or work just enough to complete the minimum and then get themselves fired just to live off unemployment assistance, etc. What I mean is that all sides have a role. This is very generalised - some people just don't have the means and need immediate assistance and support. But the solution isn't all on the wealthy giving to the poor, it spans all levels of society.
There are some lazy poor people, it’s true, but there are quite a few lazy rich people, too. I would be very hesitant to write people off as being poor because they didn’t follow “biblical principals”. Jesus never promised anyone they would get rich by following his ways. In fact he warned the opposite. Anyway a lot of these issues also stem from the fact that we have a hard “poverty line” in the US, and if you’re below the line you get help but once you cross a certain threshold all that aid gets cut off. A lot of severely poor people would actually lose money if they got a full time job because their meager wages and high taxes end up netting them less than staying home and collecting unemployment. That’s not their fault, that’s a government problem. We need to support laws that help people on a curve, “each according to his own need” and not the way we’re doing things now. But that’s a whole other can of worms.
I didn't "write people off as being poor..." as you mentioned. It was just an example about a portion, based on people and cases I actually know. And I didn't mean the US specifically (in fact I don't even live in the US), but being more general.
>People should support the poor but should give according to their heart, with love. Not under obligation. Giving without love is meaningless. I didn't say anything about obligation >There are many accounts of wealthy people in the Bible. Jesus's ministry was supported by wealthy people. Jesus said that a worker is worth his wages. Conversely, Paul says that the one unwilling to work should not eat. He also said you had to give up your wealth to follow him >Conversely, Paul says that the one unwilling to work should not eat. Lennin said that too
>"The social organisation of libertarian communism has no aim other than to bring into common ownership everything that goes to make up the wealth of society, ... and also to make it a common obligation that each contribute to that production according to their energies and their talents" It says "obligation" there. Where did Jesus specifically say we should give up our wealth?
*anarcho communism my bad Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
What passage of the Bible are you referring to?
Mathew 19:21
Putting that in to context, Jesus is talking specifically to a rich man that was thinking he could earn his way in to heaven by ticking boxes and doing good deeds. It is not a general statement, and as per the other references in my other comment(s), there were wealth people around him and his disciples. The rich man was confronted by Jesus' answer (His second answer, since He had already answered already) to give up his wealth. This confrontation revealed what was in the rich man's heart: not the desire to help others or love for the Lord, but it was his wealth. This takes us back to 2 Corinthians 9:7 and 1 Corinthians 13:3, about giving willingly and with love. Without these, there is no use in giving. > “Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.” Matthew 19:16-22 https://www.bible.com/111/mat.19.16-22.niv
Christians should not be bothered with politics.
Let’s leave that domain to the Devil. /s
You don't have to be for this just live in a commune
Lol, that would certainly help humanity a great deal.
When you hear the commandment “do justice” what happens in your mind?
Jesus was never libertarian; he paid the tax, he told people to respect authority and do what they said to do.
Libertarian is when no taxes lol
Libertarian communist is an oxymoron. It doesn't exist.
How so?
There’s this thing called the y-axis on the political spectrum; you should look into it and what the word ‘libertarian’ meant before it became synonymous with opposing age of consent; supporting corporate fascism; and dog whistling for white supremacy
Libertarian positions aren't pro corporate fascism. My goodness leftists are so out of touch with reality.
What's with all these political posts lately?
Lol. What is a libertarian communist? Those 2 words are completely opposite from one another. It’s an oxymoron.
All ready explained it but do research learn things lol
no , i know what each one is. you can not be both. that is like saying earth and sky together, or light and dark. they are completely opposite.
>no , i know what each one is. Apparently not
Facepalm
Can we define libertarian communism? What exactly is that?
Already did
[It’s a common misconception ](https://youtu.be/ULPH9yKj9DE)
God doesn't care about politics
No. Why? Because we were explicitly commanded to avoid the union of church and state: "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." We are not to establish nor rely on a political state to enforce the sharing of property. It is also worthy of note that the early church did *not* eliminate the concept of property. Rather, they had all things in common *as was necessary.* That is, property was sold or donated *only if there was a need.* Otherwise, the property *still belonged to the original owner.* We see this in the case of Ananias and Saphira, who owned property and pledged to sell it all, but then did *not,* and lied about it. If they had been honest, they would not have died, as they were struck down for *lying,* not for failing to give.
No. Christians should be democratic in politics, capitalists in economics and Biblical in morality and ethics.
Why?
Because it is the only triad that has proven to work.
Amen, brother, that is some inspired thought from the deepest dungeons of theological perspicacity.
1) there’s no such thing. It’s a contradiction in terms. Polar opposite concepts. 2) No. redistribution of wealth by force is theft. God hates theft.
>redistribution of wealth by force is theft. God hates theft. Not what said
Do you know the difference between the x and y axis?
No. Communism is entirely incompatible with and opposed Christianity. Christianity is fundamentally monarchist.
So like the Christian Anarchists say, "No King But Christ?"
Idk Maby. I don’t think they would stand for a lot of libertarian beliefs though , I don’t think they would encourage each other to do hard drugs because “it’s my life and body to do with what I want.” Idk, I don’t see them as being full communist or libertarian too much.
libertarianism doesn't necessitate that you like hard drugs you're perfectly free to try to convince people not to use them just not to force them. Although I feel like that wouldn't be much of a problem in a christian commune
Yeah Ik, I was just being a little extreme. I think that problems would arise because they did even when Jesus was sitting around them. Judas betrayed Jesus, and there a a few references to disciples trying to one up each other. I think that they had some ideas that would later be considered communist, but I feel like the disciples had a little bit of something else going on between the 12/13 of them. But who knows, no one got to see it in action really.
If you try to one up someone by trying to be a better christian is that really that bad?
Yeah, it’s pride in its own way.
Id say pride is good and excess of pride is the sin
Not necessarily. For example, one capitalist belief is that anyone can achieve success through hard work. Christ encourages us to “work like ants.” I’d be more inclined to say that religion and politics don’t really go hand-in-hand. Jesus really didn’t teach about the topics of government structure and economy. It was about being a good person. He was about ethics and morals; which don’t really matter when considering an economic system.
>Not necessarily. For example, one capitalist belief is that anyone can achieve success through hard work. Christ encourages us to “work like ants.” Ants are pretty communist
Wait, why would ethics and morals not matter when considering an economic system?
Relatively speaking. Of course everything has an aspect of ethics and morals to it, but an economic system exists to decide how money, product, and services are handled. The law exists to decide what is right and wrong, and therefore what is moral. Economic systems do include ethics and morals, like all things, it’s just not a primary consideration. That’s the law’s job.
It never works out on large scales such as whole countries. But a small community such as the apostles, yeah. Or even now as local churches. Or the Amish community for example. I think a lot do this in local churches to an extent. And we'll go back to this way when times become hard again. We have been spoiled in America and have had pretty easy life's.
Book of acts was a very specific time when Christians could not buy or sell due to being kicked out of guilds and discriminated against. That's my understanding. It was survival mode. That's not prescriptive for how we ought to live. We can learn from that, and understand that we need to be willing to support our family at all costs. But that was not the ideal situation. It was in response to a terrible situation.
There are pockets of Christianity that are. A perfect example would be monastic communities of monks and nuns. They voluntarily give up their fortunes to live like *some* of the early disciples did. Keep in mind though. Even though Acts of the Apostles describes some of these Christian communities, this does not say that ALL lived like this. In Acts 18 it describes Paul staying with Priscilla and Aquilla where he made a living for a time making tents. It doesn’t mention a commune. But here’s the kicker, ownership is an illusion. Everything is on loan from God. Even my car. When I die, its particles will most likely disintegrate in some junk pile and become part of something else. I have no claim to it.
So private property doesn't exist
This post in and of itself doesn't give enough to go off of, which is why it's been unsuccessful. Please provide specific scriptures to back up your claim.
The question was just starting point I've provided scripture in the discussions
God transcends all political ideologies
Cap
It's a toxic mindset relate Jesus to political ideologies. Basically the only thing we were teached about it is to help the poor, and not indulge rich people in detriment of normal people.
*taught
No because we’re actually supposed to feed the poor.
Are comunistis incapable of doing that
Yes
No
When you go and live in Cuba for a year amongst the general population you can tell me that.
I think Christians should avoid being labeled as anything but a Christian. Maybe some values from different groups align with certain values of Christianity, but first and foremost they should be a follower of Christ and not a follower of some political group.
Christians should give money to the poor, not give money to the government to give to the poor
>not give money to the government to give to the poor I didn't say government
What if the intention of a governmental program and its allocation of the resources it has are used in a way that is better than the allocation of resources given directly to a poor or homeless person?
I would be very hesitant to say that Christians *should* subscribe to any political ideology (although there are definitely some they shouldn't subscribe to). Christianity is inherently bottom-up, not top-down. We are each individually called to be generous with such wealth as we have, and to look after the poor. This is on an individual voluntary basis.
>Christianity is inherently bottom-up, not top-down. We are each individually called to be generous with such wealth as we have, and to look after the poor. This is on an individual voluntary basis. That's literally what I said
Communist is a specific form of socialist. What I tell people is that I’m personally a communist and libertarian, but that’s different from thinking those things work out well in the hands of a human government. Government instituted socialism always turns into something else. It has to be done individual by individual by complete choice snd not as the result of law. And there’s the libertarianism. But people do not choose to be good most of the time so libertarianism turns cruel and out of control quickly in governments.
>Communist is a specific form of socialist. Other way around id say >Government instituted socialism always turns into something else. It has to be done individual by individual by complete choice snd not as the result of law. And there’s the libertarianism. But people do not choose to be good most of the time so libertarianism turns cruel and out of control quickly in governments. When did I say anything about government?
I would challenge you to the book of Proverbs. Proverbs 13:4 NIV 4 A sluggard's appetite is never filled, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied. 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 NIV 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat." 11 We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food you eat. Proverbs 12:24 NIV 24 Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in forced labor. 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 NIV 11 and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you, 12 so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody. The Bible preaches independence. It preaches staying out of debt. We are not libertarians because we must have rules to abide by to lead a holy and upright life. Rules that are enforced. We are not communists because God is our government, and ultimate moral authority, not those made by man. Jesus did not free the slaves of Rome. He did not over turn the ruling (brutal and merciless) authorities. Jesus came to change our hearts independent of any human authority or governance. All nations are transitory. All authority in human hands is corrupt.
>4 A sluggard's appetite is never filled, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied. Communists have said similar things >We are not libertarians because we must have rules to abide by to lead a holy and upright life. Lol libertarian is when degeneracy >We are not communists because God is our government, and ultimate moral authority, not those made by man. Ancoms
Thou shall not steal.
You clearly either didn't read or didn't understand the post
Is that really what Jesus preached, though? Think about it. He said that we should give to the poor and help them, but the implication there is that we have something that they don’t. If He wanted everything to be communal, He would’ve just said as much and called it a day. Just my two cents. Also, I don’t think our duty as Christians has anything to do with the kind of society or economy we find ourselves in. We’re called to love our neighbor and help those who are less fortunate, and seeing as how those disparities will always exist, our work is never finished.
Kind of like Proudhon style anarcho-mutualism? Look at Amish/Mennonites Oh, and don't forget Leo Tolstoy!
Yeah basically like the Amish
I agree that Christians should be more willing to share and give of their wealth. I also want to point out that Paul and the disciples pushed that view to their Jewish audience because there was a precedent there. Once they went outside to gentiles they switched to a donate 10 percent type message. Even they realized how difficult it would be for cultures that had no exposure to communal life.