Socialism Is Not Communism

The Church did a lot of things in Acts that do not apply to us today:

1) We're no longer choosing a successor to Judas Iscariot, or, for that matter, any successors to any of the Apostles.

2) Although I've been in some auditoriums that were drafty (most likely because someone left some doors open that probably shouldn't have been left open), it wasn't exactly the rushing mighty wind from heaven, nor do I ever recall seeing any cloven tongues of fire sitting upon any speaker (who was, BTW, speaking in a language unknown to him but known to at least some of those in the audience).

3) I don't recall ever attending a business meeting in which the "new business" consisted of trying to figure out whether or not the congregation should accept a non-circumcised man as a full-fledged member of that local body.

IOW, one needs to be careful about taking some incident that is mentioned solely in Acts and thus concluding that must of necessity apply to us today.

While you failed to cite the chapter and verse in Acts that refers to the subject of your post, I'm going to guess that you're referring to 2:44-45 and/or 4:32-35.

A bit of historical perspective might shed some light on these two passages.

During that period of time in first century Palestine (c. AD 33 - c AD 50), that newly-formed religious "sect" we now call Christianity was growing by leaps and bounds and thus posed a threat to the religious establishment of that time and place.

Palestine had always been a troubling thorn in the flesh to imperial Rome, because the Jewish people always were looking for ways to overthrow any foreign government that sought to control them (from Babylon to the Helenistic Greeks to Rome). Even after Jesus's resurrection the Apostles themselves still thought in terms of Christ's kingdom being one that would simply replace that of imperial Rome (Acts 1:6).

From time to time Rome tried various policies to try to surpress the spirit of rebellion that was found in most every Jewish man's heart, most were only temporarily successful---if at all.

In the Romans' eyes, this off-shoot "sect" of Judiaism who were called "Christians" was just another variety of that strange monothiestic religion (cf. the Pharisees & the Saduceess & the Herodians, etc., etc.). But to those within the ranks of the Jewish religious establishment, this ever-growing segment of Palestine's population posed a very serious threat.

Not only were the ranks of traditional Judiaism losing people (and therefore the financial backing) to this band of "Christian heretics," but also this people posed a threat of having Rome stepping in with its full military force and taking over direct control of Palestine--something which actually occurred within about 40 years after Jesus's resurrection.

Thus, the Jewish religious establishment implemented a policy of either punishing (cf. Acts 3 & 5) or eliminating (cf. the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7) those who seemed to be the leading rabble rousers among this new "sect" that saw the OT temple sacrificial system (and the money that it brought into the temple coffers) as obsolete.

When this band of "rebel Jews" continued to grow in spite of the heavy-handed polices of the establishment Jewish officials, these officials then implemented a policy of confiscating the lands of those who rejected the religion of their fathers. In an agrarian society such as that of first-century Palestine, if one's lands were confiscated, that person no longer had any means of supporting his family.

To avoid "losing it all," those former Jews that had real estate holdings that were subject to this policy of having their lands confiscated by the Jewish power establishment did the only thing that they could do--they sold their prime real estate holdings [Any land in that little region called Palestine was valuable, but if that land was fertile, those that owned such land were the "Donald Trumps" of that day!].

What does any of this have to do with what we call "socialism" today?

For one thing, "socialism"--be it named "democratic" or any other adjective you choose to call it--is a system that is, in essence, "forced" upon its citizens whether they like it or not.

The so-called "socialism" that is mentioned in Acts 2 & 4 was strictly a voluntary (as opposed to it being forced upon the people by means of governmental fiats) thing. I say this because in Acts 5:4 Peter clearly stated that the money that Ananias received from the sale of his lands was Ananias's own to do with as he pleased. IOW, the neither the selling of his property nor the money that was received from its sale was something the Apostles demanded be given into the coffers of the Jerusalem church.

Ananias's sin (and that of his wife Sapphira) wasn't that he had acquired money from the sale of his real estate holdings, but rather that he/they lied about the percentage they voluntarily gave to the treasury of the Jersusalem church.

What we read about the Jerusalem church doing in Acts is far different from what we have today in any country whose government is essentially socialist in nature.

If you think our taxes are too high and basically mis-spent by our government, just wait until our nation goes even more socialistic than it already is!!

Some would have us believe that our system of delivering medical care would be better under a system of socialized medicine. We already have such a system in place here in the US when it comes to our military and VA medical care systems.

Anyone remember how well that medical care was delivered to the rank-and-file military men in the Army's flagship hospital Walter Reed Medical Center just outside Washington DC?

And, just who do you think will be the ones who decide what's "best" for you and your family under a socialistic government? Why it'll be those loving and caring politicians and bureaucrats that comprise our government. Based on their past and current record of solving all of our problems, I'd say that we'll REALLY be in a heap of trouble.

So, to answer your question about what the Jerusalem Christians did (Which, BTW, is never once mentioned as being practiced by any other body of Christians anywhere else in the NT--a fact you conveniently overlooked.) was evil, my reply is that, "No, it wasn't 'evil,' but neither was it a practice that was demanded of by the Apostles, nor can you cite any other NT passage that indicates that what was done by the Jerusalem Christians was the norm for any other (especially Gentile) "local body of called-out and scripturally-baptized believers in Jesus Christ."

 

The "socialism" or "communism" that we see practiced in Acts has nothing to do with government enforced socialism or communism. The people in Acts had a choice to give for the common good or not. This was the action of the church and its members. Likewise, what they did was by their own free choice to give. See Acts 5:1-11. Peter makes in clear that the land and the proceeds from it belonged to Ananias and Sapphira and that they could have kept the whole amount and nothing would have happened. However, they tried to lie and act as if they sold the land for a certain amount and that they gave the entire amount to the church (while keeping back a bit for themselves). They could have told the truth and said we sold our land for X amount and are giving the church Y amount and nothing would have happened to them. Their sin was in the lie they tried to pull over on the Holy Spirit and the church. Finally this biblical "communism" was not for the entire population and it was not forced upon the people by government officials. You are talking apples and oranges.

 

Sorry, but Lenin according to Winston S. Churchill disagrees with you about this idea of communism being on the road to socialism. According to Lenin via Churchill:

You see their goal is to found weak Socialist Governments and when they fall snatch absolute power and found the Marxist state not the other way around.

 

Right, but you err in your first line by referring to what was going on in Acts as a form of socialism or communism. It was not either in any sense whatsoever, for the very reasons you cite. Free men voluntarily sharing their goods with the needy is called "charity". Socialism and communism both are a blasphemy against the Biblical ideal.

In Marxism, socialism is a transitional phase that leads to communism. Socialism preceded communism, being a key feature of the French Revolution, which, by the way, is the role model for the United Nations.

Capitalism will fall (notice I said FALL, NOT FAIL) because the UN has decreed it (not in direct language), and the United States government is a leading player in the UN plan.

It gets confusing because although Marx said socialism is transitional to communism, modern socialists see it the other way around. They see socialism as the ultimate utopia.

It's easiest to think of them both as collectivist systems which oppose private property rights. Since private property is at the heart of Capitalism, it stands in direct opposition to either system. Contemporary socialists tolerate ownership of private property, but you can count on it, they will eventually get rid of it.

One theory that's drifting about is that we are ultimately headed for neither a Capitalist nor Socialist one-world uniformity, but for a elitist-collective society - a society characterized not so much by economic disparity as in feudalism, but in political disparity with the elites having total freedom and control, and the collective having a large supply of amusements, drugs, and other distractions to keep them happy. I personally do not think this is a far-fetched theory.

 

That is why I put " " marks around both words in my first statement.:thumbs:

 

Then I take it back. I missed that. Sorry.

 

Democratic socialism is an oxymoron. Control the economy and you control everything.:BangHead: :BangHead: :tonofbricks: :laugh:

 

The above statement is the only one from this thread that has stuck with me. I'm filing it away for future pondering.

I'll admit right up front that I don't understand all the differences between socialism and communism. I'm open to understanding, but you'll have to dumb it down for me. LOL!

Please allow me to ramble for just a minute...

#1---one of our National Pastors, though only hearing about the US from biased news sources, said that he is afraid for the US and her people-----he lived in communism for most of his life and he said America is going down the wrong path. He, an outsider, fears communism for America.

#2---I understand the premise of Socialism (I think), but the application is lacking, imo. I'll give you a few examples:

A. The current welfare system, formerly called social services in MI, is quite lacking. In order to help the ones that need helping, we have created a monster. Let's look at the life of a single Mom (we'll call her Martha). Martha has three kids. In MI, she is told that the government will help her, so long as she works a minimum of 20 hours a week, iirc. She does that. Her kids are put in day care for those 20 hours. She is a good worker. Soon she is offered a full-time position. She is proud of her achievements. Unfortunately, though, if she takes the job, she loses 100% paid insurance for her children. She loses help for day care (perhaps). She loses her assistance. Well, one could say that the government helped her get a good start and now she's independent-----and some may go that route. Unfortunately, though, in my experience, people will not. They will remain at part time because monitarily speaking, they are far better off. They will remain on assistance.

B. With the current welfare system, if you do fall on hard times and need help, you've just opened up your whole life for government involvement. Do you spank your kids? Are they immunized properly? Do you homeschool? Where do the kids sleep? How many kids do you have per bedroom? I know a young woman who relied on welfare and ultimately lost her children. You go for help and end up being controlled.

I guess I'll sum up all my ramblings by saying that once a person goes on government assistance, they are opening themselves up for government control. They also have fallen into a trap that will be hard to get out of, because they're better off financially, still stuck in the trap. To me, that sounds exactly like the communism they had here for years. No one could think for themselves. Everyone was controlled.

The government is currently taking over businesses in the bail out (unless I'm not understanding it correctly, which is quite possible ) and that is also a scare for me.

I personally do not want THAT much government involvement in my life. I am in a position financially that I don't have to. So many others aren't so forunate----and will probably never get out.

*Disclaimer----this comes with a frustrated tone, aimed at no poster. Also, I am open-minded enough on this subject to read any opposing responses and contemplate them. Thanks in advance.

 

Walmart, anyone?

 

I am of the opinion, based on scripture, that the churches are responsible to take care of poor, the widows, and the fatherless. I don't think that's the government's job.

However, the church has been lacking for years. Many churches do a lot to help, but it's never enough because the needs are so great.

Aside from that, we are too preoccupied arguing amongst ourselves about Calvinism, tongues, works, and right down to whether or not women should wear pants or cover their hair. Some would rather write books about Barney the purple dinosaur being like the Anti-christ than to reach out to those in need. Some would rather debate dating vs. courting than to reach out to the lost. I'm not excluding myself in the above.

 

Absolutely. I too would much rather that the church or individual Christians care for the poor, the aged, and the sick. But I agree that the needs are so great that this is impossible unless radical changes occur in the hearts and minds of Christians. I don't see any evidence that that is going to happen. Therefore, I believe that a vote for the government to fill the gap is akin to Christian charity. Those who adamantly resist this idea should re-examine their motives and beliefs.

 

Christians do not need a change of mind. The church does not lack in this area as libs pretend they do. Funny how libs want to claim Christian principles for welfare but claim separation of church and state on a great many other issues. And those who vote for abortion supporters should re-examine their motives and beliefs.

 

I was taught that taking care of folks starts with their family. But with the sexual freedom and free sex as so many are for, comes with a great cost. No family net work. How much of this do we owe to our education and knowing our right?

Next would be friends to aid. As I was reading the other day so much friendship end as one's needs rise. So the secular world does a lot of talk about others helping but not them.

Next would be help from the church. So many do not want anything from the church till they need help. I work with the homeless often( due to our warm weather in Fl. we have a lot of home list folks), I hear over and over I haven't been in a church 5 to 45 years or more. Less folks in church more folks need more help but less money to help them on.

For the government to help in my mind it is to much a waste of money and to little help. And keep in mind so much of the problem starts with folks wanting to help. I know my rights, don't tell me what I can or can not do. But with every action there is a reaction or a price to pay. By the time I was in the 5th grade I believe we were taught how much it cost to raise a child and how much more money one would make with an eight grade education over less of one and how much more one would make who finished high school over the eight grade.

Don't get me wrong I feel for the homeless or I wouldn't take my time and money to help them, but most in my aera who talk so much about help, I don't see them out there. Talk to the Salvation Army folks or other like groups and the ones who are turned around are very few. The ones that I have saeen who were turned around for the most part are the ones who got saved or back on track for him. Fun has been the down fall for most, drugs, drink, or not knowing how to live on what they were making, and that is from very low income to rather high income.

 

You are such a phony.

Just so you know, I never have bought into your conservative , then libertarian, then disenchanted conservative who has to support a liberal act.

I've always known you for what you are.

Now everyone knows the truth.

 

How can you say that the church does not lack in this area? There are more than 50M Americans without medical insurance. Can the church pick up the tab for adequate medical care in the U.S. I don't think so. People are losing their homes at a rapid rate. Social Security and Medical will go belly up before 2015 I predict. Can the church fill in the gap?

 

The church has a part to play and it could do more than it currently does. However, nationalized healthcare is not needed and the church does not need to try and bridge the gap all alone.

The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985 (EMTALA) already bridges the gap and makes it illegal to refuse treatment to anyone based on their inability to pay.

The "healthcare crisis" is a manufacture myth of those who are pushing the socialist agenda in America. They need to create the image of a national emergency in order the get the masses behind their agenda and they use misinformation to do so.

 

While I agree with you to a point, as I stated on the previous page, government is failing our people. Yes, the government is feeding them. I'll give them that. However, I know of a young man who was kicked out of his "Christian home" and was not helped by the church because no one wanted a young, single man in their homes. This young man, who was sleeping on a bench, turned to the welfare system to help him secure housing (he already had a full-time job, poor as it was). He was told, in essence, that if he had a pregnant girlfriend, they would have help for him. Otherwise, he was on his own. If that doesn't promote immorality, I don't know what does! The government did actually do right by him by MAKING him make his own way. I'm not complaining about that. I'm complaining about the promotion of immorality.

There are other flaws as well. The welfare community in a part of TN where I lived for a short time are obese, drunk, and lazy----and on the government's dime. No one is MAKING them make their own way.

My SIL is stuck in the system. She doesn't even want out. Why? The government pays for everything and she can just hop from boyfriend to boyfriend and never have to take care of herself. Her attitude is not rare, ime.

 

Once, in a calendar for school children, political systems were explained by the example of the reader as a farmer with two cows.

- Democracy: The government kindly asks for your milk, and you can decide how much it should cost.
- Anarchy: You wake up to find your cows stolen, but as you can simply go over to your neighbours and steal theirs, there is no problem.
- Socialism: The government takes away your cows and sells the milk back to you... One bottle a month.
- Communism: The government takes away your cows, your farm and your neighbours and forces you to work in a quarry.
- Fascism: The government takes away your cows and shoots you.