Is the Christian religion by nature socialistic?

[Procrustes Stretched]

funny how the conservative noise machine here just knee-jerk supports authority. hmmm.....

 

[Avatar4321]

Kinda seems that way to me.

Of course it is. And of course Jesus was a liberal. That's what we've been trying to say for years. Other than being anti abortion, Republicans don't give a shit about life or the poor or anything that Jesus said. The GOP only uses God as a wedge issue to divide us. Fact is, abortion and birth control are necessary evils. But being against abortion was a great idea the GOP came up with to win over middle class voters.

Reagan and Nixon were not anti abortion. Reagan only changed his position to win over the evangelicals.

So today a lot of middle class and poor Americans are voting against their own financial interests because of this one issue. The GOP were smart to take the position they took. Wins them over a lot of voters who care deeply about abortion. Morons I call them.

Same when the GOP used racism and the Southern Strategy and won the entire south. Bunch of white poor ignorant people who vote because of god gays and guns. Brainwashed.

It's amazing how those who dont know what Jesus said think they know better what He said than those who do.

 

[Avatar4321]

funny how the conservative noise machine here just knee-jerk supports authority. hmmm.....

And what authority might that be?

 

[hipeter924]

I would say Christianity is altruistic rather than socialist, but then again the bible doesn't imply the need for taxation or the forceful redistribution of wealth.

Edit: Christianity being Socialist was coined more recently by Michael Moore, the left wing troll of the movie industry.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I would say Christianity is altruistic rather than socialist, but then again the bible doesn't imply the need for taxation or the forceful redistribution of wealth.

Edit: Christianity being Socialist was coined more recently by Michael Moore, the left wing troll of the movie industry.

Christianity has been called socialistic for ages before Moore ever hit the scene.

get a grip



note: altruism was considered by Ayn Rand to be one of the major cardinal sins.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

What? Socialism has nothing to do with either altruism or selflessness, it is a economic theory that focuses on common ownership of the companies that drive the economy. It is not a philosophy, nor does it care about morals, it is about nothing but economics.

It's an economic theory, yes, but one that requires people to labor not for their own gain, but for the gain of society as a whole, and for the express purpose that everyone's needs are met. So each individual works to support each other to make sure nobody has to go without. I'm not sure what you'd call that, I'd call it altruism and selflessness becoming legal imperatives.

It does not require that unless it is imposed. by the government. People are still able to work for their own gain, it is just the means of production that are commonly owned. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs is not socialism, it is sophism.

Yeah, you got me there, what I'm describing is more along the lines of Marxist Communism than basic Socialism.

 

[theliq]

It's the other way around. The roots of socialism are based in Christianity.

However, the Church has condemned the 'progressive socialist movement' (that's pretty much the Democrats) for its replacement of God with secular greed.

There is something horribly inane about you and your comments......"the Democrats"...."Replacement of GOD with secular GREED"

You could make the same arguement about the "Church" itself and/or Republicans....You need educating because by your myopic conservative thought and negative attitude towards everything and everyone,shows how shallow you are as a person. I find you totally self opinionated and totally repugnant...TOTALLY.

You are uneducated.

I'm being nice today,so think yourself lucky.tl "always keeping the bastards honest"

You can disagree with CG all you want. I do from time to time. But she is hardly uneducated.

Well uneducated by Australian standards then.

 

[California Girl]

Kinda seems that way to me.

It's the other way around. The roots of socialism are based in Christianity.

However, the Church has condemned the 'progressive socialist movement' (that's pretty much the Democrats) for its replacement of God with secular greed.

There is something horribly inane about you and your comments......"the Democrats"...."Replacement of GOD with secular GREED"

You could make the same arguement about the "Church" itself and/or Republicans....You need educating because by your myopic conservative thought and negative attitude towards everything and everyone,shows how shallow you are as a person. I find you totally self opinionated and totally repugnant...TOTALLY.

You are uneducated.

I'm being nice today,so think yourself lucky.tl "always keeping the bastards honest"

I find you to be a gibbering idiot, so I guess that makes us even.

You are an idiot.

I'm being nice too, but you might not be as lucky as I am. "Keeping the stupid honesst"

 

[California Girl]

There is something horribly inane about you and your comments......"the Democrats"...."Replacement of GOD with secular GREED"

You could make the same arguement about the "Church" itself and/or Republicans....You need educating because by your myopic conservative thought and negative attitude towards everything and everyone,shows how shallow you are as a person. I find you totally self opinionated and totally repugnant...TOTALLY.

You are uneducated.

I'm being nice today,so think yourself lucky.tl "always keeping the bastards honest"

You can disagree with CG all you want. I do from time to time. But she is hardly uneducated.

Well uneducated by Australian standards then.

By any standard of any country across the first world, you are a gibbering idiot.

 

[The Professor]

The following Bible verses show there was a time and a place where at least some Christians practiced a form of socialism (the philosophy of “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need”):

“And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:43-47, KJV).

“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. ” (Acts 4 32:35, KJV).

Those who attempted to circumvent this wealth redistribution system met a terrible fate. The Bible tells us what happened when Ananias and his wife sold a possession and withheld a portion of the price for themselves:

“And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

“And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things” (Acts 4:36 to 5:6, KJV).

However, the Bible also gives this powerful admonition to those who neglect their responsibilities to provide for themselves and their families:

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Timothy 5:8, KJV).

In fact, even Paul and other apostles worked for their keep, not willing to receive that which they did not earn:

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. (2 Thessalonians 3: 6:12, KJV).

In the final analysis, a distinction must be made between socialism and charity. When such a distinction is made, it is evident - at least to me - that Christianity is based upon principles of charity. Here are just a few Biblical verses which prove my point:

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27, KJV).

“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:14-20), KJV).

“When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

“Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal” (Matthew 25:31-46, KJV, emphasis my own).

“But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer. And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins. Use hospitality one to another without grudging. As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Peter 4:7-10, KJV).

 

[editec]

Kinda seems that way to me.

ALL religions are basically socialISTIC.

Socialistic doesn't means socialISM, however.

Socialistic means of or relating to things societAL.

SocialISM is an economic system.

Everything that society does is socialISTIC.


CApitalist societies are still more or less socialistic.

That doesn't mean that everything that society does is socialISM.

Socialism is an economic system where the government owns and controls the means of production.

 

[California Girl]

Kinda seems that way to me.

ALL religions are basically socialISTIC.

Socialistic doesn't means socialISM, however.

Socialistic means of or relating to things societAL.

SocialISM is an economic system.

Everything that society does is socialISTIC.


CApitalist societies are still more or less socialistic.

That doesn't mean that everything that society does is socialISM.

Socialism is an economic system where the government owns and controls the means of production.

We were here first. Socialism copied faith, not the other way around. Just sayin'.

 

[daveman]

Kinda seems that way to me.

Of course it is. And of course Jesus was a liberal. That's what we've been trying to say for years. Other than being anti abortion, Republicans don't give a shit about life or the poor or anything that Jesus said. The GOP only uses God as a wedge issue to divide us. Fact is, abortion and birth control are necessary evils. But being against abortion was a great idea the GOP came up with to win over middle class voters.

Reagan and Nixon were not anti abortion. Reagan only changed his position to win over the evangelicals.

So today a lot of middle class and poor Americans are voting against their own financial interests because of this one issue. The GOP were smart to take the position they took. Wins them over a lot of voters who care deeply about abortion. Morons I call them.

Same when the GOP used racism and the Southern Strategy and won the entire south. Bunch of white poor ignorant people who vote because of god gays and guns. Brainwashed.

The word count/leftist horseshit ratio is staggering. Well done!

 

[daveman]

The hierarchy of the church has always been full of pederasts, murderers, and thieves.

You misspelled "Democratic Party".

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The hierarchy of the church has always been full of pederasts, murderers, and thieves.

You misspelled "Democratic Party".

Nope. I mispelt Dave-the-douchbagh

 

[Peach]

What? Socialism has nothing to do with either altruism or selflessness, it is a economic theory that focuses on common ownership of the companies that drive the economy. It is not a philosophy, nor does it care about morals, it is about nothing but economics.

It's an economic theory, yes, but one that requires people to labor not for their own gain, but for the gain of society as a whole, and for the express purpose that everyone's needs are met. So each individual works to support each other to make sure nobody has to go without. I'm not sure what you'd call that, I'd call it altruism and selflessness becoming legal imperatives.

It does not require that unless it is imposed. by the government. People are still able to work for their own gain, it is just the means of production that are commonly owned. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs is not socialism, it is sophism.

NATIONAL socialism concentrated on ownership of corporate entities by the government.

 

[Katzndogz]

Kinda seems that way to me.

It's the other way around. The roots of socialism are based in Christianity.

However, the Church has condemned the 'progressive socialist movement' (that's pretty much the Democrats) for its replacement of God with secular greed.

I'm not a history expert, and I know even less of European history (outside of them two big wars we tagged in on), but it does seem likely to me that the socialist ideals of altruism and self sacrifice were derived from the influence of spirituality, most likely Christianity given its prominence in Europe during the years leading up to the philosophy's conception. It's always seemed to me that philosophy is essentially what you'd have if you took the very base Christian ideals and eliminated anything spiritual from the program, but I'm sure there's some holes in that theory.

Anyway, where I disagree is that socialists or democrats replaced God with secular greed. Both groups view material greed as something of a cardinal sin. If anything, socialists and further left leaning secular democrats have replaced God with "the people", or society, or the good of the collective, pick your terminology. Just as God is the final arbiter of good and evil for a Christian, the greater good and the well being/will of the majority are the final arbiters of right and wrong for the Marxist.

I surely wish we would restore education to our educational system. The roots of socialism come from Plato's Republic, predating Christianity by a few hundred years. The basis of socialism is a strict two-class system based on those who were fit to rule over all others (the philosopher kings) and the masses who are considered unable to care for themselves. This is the philosophy of the democrats who know better than you do how to run your life and are able to dispense perfect justice. Socialism requires three things to achieve socialistic perfection. Abolishment of the family. Abolishment of private property and abolishment of the worst enemy of all human emotions, pride.

 

[amrchaos]

It's an economic theory, yes, but one that requires people to labor not for their own gain, but for the gain of society as a whole, and for the express purpose that everyone's needs are met. So each individual works to support each other to make sure nobody has to go without. I'm not sure what you'd call that, I'd call it altruism and selflessness becoming legal imperatives.

It does not require that unless it is imposed. by the government. People are still able to work for their own gain, it is just the means of production that are commonly owned. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs is not socialism, it is sophism.

Yeah, you got me there, what I'm describing is more along the lines of Marxist Communism than basic Socialism.

But the op probably meant Marxist Communism when he spoke of "Socialism".( I will use the terms Socialist and Socialism in the same way.)

It is kind of like when people talk of Democracy in America, they mean our Constituional Republic that sets up the Federal government, or the Republic of their states, or the District-based representative government of their cities/counties. Yes, there are pure Democracies in America, but we usually mean REPUBLIC of some form or type.

Even so, I do think the Leftist concepts of Socialism and Communism is partly influenced by Christian beliefs as well as the Left usage of Christian philosophy to shape their propaganda to influence people. The reason why most Christian on board disagree with you is that they have yet to accept the fact that something as good and wholesome as god, religion, altruism, and faith can be twisted to give rise to things they hate. Such things as human misery, slavery, destruction of the individual, Authoritarianism by the "Godless".

Christianity is not socialism. Socialist steal Christian concepts for its propaganda. Yet there is no proof that the Socialist ideals and policies will result into this "Utopian society" they envison. In fact, past results has demonstrated various forms of man created hell holes and Insanity Palaces for the few leaders that espoused the ideals in their recreation of the state.

 

[daveman]

The hierarchy of the church has always been full of pederasts, murderers, and thieves.

You misspelled "Democratic Party".

Nope. I mispelt Dave-the-douchbagh

Well, that's because you're not very bright.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The following Bible verses show there was a time and a place where at least some Christians practiced a form of socialism (the philosophy of “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need”):

No it does not, but feel free to make a fool of yourself if you want.

By the way, that is Marxism, not socialism, but don't let facts stop you from making yourself look even dumber than you already do.

“And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:43-47, KJV).

“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. ” (Acts 4 32:35, KJV).

Tell me something "professor", what does that have to do with the means of production being commonly owned? Did the people that received the money subsequently buy into the businesses that were sold?

Wait a second, you couldn't sell businesses back then, all you could sell were physical possessions like jewels.

Those who attempted to circumvent this wealth redistribution system met a terrible fate. The Bible tells us what happened when Ananias and his wife sold a possession and withheld a portion of the price for themselves:

“And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

“And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things” (Acts 4:36 to 5:6, KJV).

That was hilarious. Tell me something, "professor", why did Peter say what I highlighted in red? Could it be because the sin was not in keeping part of the money but in pretending they were giving everything to the poor? They were trying to promote themselves in the eyes of others, they were not circumventing anything.