Does Socialism and Christianity follow the same economic principals?

[Vouthon]

I think that “socialism”, of some kind of non-state-based ecclesiastical form, is actually not an inaccurate description of the early church practice.

The term didn’t exist then, of course, but in retrospect - and with a healthy dose of anachronism - it wouldn’t be far wrong in expressing the solidary mutualist and communalizing ownership praxis of the Jerusalem church.

Another passage that's interesting to consider:

"For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich...

I do not mean that there should be relief for others and pressure on you, but it is a question of a fair equality between your present abundance and their need, so that their abundance may be for your need, in order that there may be equality. As it is written,

“The one who had much did not have too much,
and the one who had little did not have too little.”"

(2 Corinthians 8:13-15)​

Paul's Gentile churches in the diaspora were financing James's Jewish Jerusalem church, through a primitive ecclesial form of redistributive 'mutualist' economics - that is closest, I guess, to a form of libertarian socialism.

As Paul inform us himself in Romans: "the Gentiles have come to share in [the Jews'] spiritual blessing, they ought also to be of service to them in material things" (Romans 15:27).

The Fordham historian L.L. Welborn has noted in a Cambridge University Press study from 2013:


https://www.cambridge.org/core/serv...texts_and_consequences_of_a_pauline_ideal.pdf

In Corinthians, Paul stipulates as the criterion and goal of the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem the ideal of ‘equality’ (ἰσότηϛ): ‘for the purpose [of the collection] is not that there [should be] relief for others and affliction for you, but rather [it should be] out of equality (ἐξ ἰσότητοϛ). In the now time, your abundance should supply their lack, in order that their abundance may supply your lack, so that there may be equality (ὅπωϛ γένηται ἰσότηϛ)....

Paul’s appeal to ‘equality’ as the principle that should govern relations between Greeks and Jews would be especially shocking, if Hans Dieter Betz is correct in his interpretation of Paul’s subsequent statement in Corinthians about the effect of the collection as signifying the obligatory submission of the Achaians to the Jerusalemites...

Paul’s surprising description of material poverty as the source of spiritual wealth in the paradigmatic instances of the Macedonians and Jesus sets the parameters within which the Corinthians are encouraged to conceive of their relationship to the poor saints in Jerusalem, and so to embrace the principle of ‘equality’. Paul is arguing implicitly that the poor Jerusalem saints are in the position of the superior party, by virtue of spiritual wealth, which has alleviated the Corinthians’ deficiency; so now, as the beneficiaries, the Corinthians are obliged, by the logic of inverse proportion, to make an extraordinary gift to the Jerusalem Christians, in order to restore ‘equality’.​

The famous statement: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28) testifies to the fact that there was to be a fundamental spiritual equality between all Christians but Paul elsewhere explains that it had a 'material' component as well: wealthier members were obliged to redistrubute their superfluities to poorer members, so that some degree of "equality" (ἐξ ἰσότητοϛ) in income distribution might ensue.

In practice, it meant that the wealthier Gentile churches (then in 'abundance') were redistrubuting resources to the poorer Jewish church headquarted in Jerusalem (then in 'need'), with the mutual understanding that if and when the tables were reversed, the same mutualist egalitarian ethic would apply in their time of need.

This did not necessarily entail an absolute equality - without any differentials in income (although an unnuanced interpretation could viably construed it as such) - rather it was designed to mitigate the excesses of superfluous wealth and poverty in the community. The same system is described in Acts:

And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. (Acts 2:44-45)​

St. Paul appears to have interpreted this doctrine as follows: everyone is entitled to work for a living and keep what they require for the necessities of life (with perhaps something left over to secure oneself) but whatever a person or group has in abundance, is owed by debt to the "poor" so that there can be equality amongst Christians not only spiritually but to an extent materially as well, inasmuch as "The one who had much did not have too much, and the one who had little did not have too little."

 

[SA Huguenot]

Maybe this is the difference between Cape Town and Jo'burg?

Over here, imagine children getting killed on a daily basis because of rogue bullets in gang fights, but the police don't interfere because they are too scared of the gangs.
What about the women and children who are raped and mutilated?

We even had a concern about a person not obeying the current covid laws, phoned the police, and the police did absolutely nothing. There are so many people over here not wearing masks yet the police don't care.

I would have really like to know what actually happened at Marikana. The reports are conflicting. It is like the reporting of the conflict between China and Japan. The police say they were attacked first, whereas the miners say they were attacked for no reason. I understand if the police were scared and reacted, as it just shows their incompetence. It would surprise me if the miners did attack first. It was even once reported that a sangoma said that the miners could attack because he/she had made the miners invisible, so the police couldn't harm them. I wouldn't be surprised with that either. If the miners attacked first then they deserved what they got. I am not against the police shooting people's legs off if they are attacking the police unprovoked. Apparently 2 police officers were dead as well.

I have been non active yet in the middle of protests, having studied at CPUT. The stupid students want free education in a country which can't support it (because Zuma's people took all the money), and they do not understand the situation. They then protest and try to shut the university down. Anybody who didn't join them were either smoked out or attacked. (there were peaceful and violent protesters though. The peaceful ones danced a lot.) They even complained about not having enough equipment and then resorted to destroying the equipment they did have. I was so happy when the police shot rubber bullets at the idiot protesters cos they deserved it. Those protests are pretty scary though...

At marikana the Unions made the people believe they can get a 75% increase. The negotiations failed, and the people had an illigal strike, forcing the mine to close down. They kept the supervisors and managers hostage, and eventually let them go for food as they were in the mine.

The Union then incited these people to loot and damage the propperty, and the mine lost millions in revenue and machinery.
The security company eventually got the people out of the mine propperty.
The protesters eventually gathered at the "Marikana koppie", Marikana hill, and started to disrupt any vehicle passing the place on the public road.
They eventually murdered four miners, two police officers, and two security guards. The 2 security officers were skinned alive and burned.
Numerous private vehicles and delivery vehicles were looted and burned. One of my company's vehicles was looted from R400 000 of stock, and burned out at a cost of 1.2 Million Rand.


The Unions then decided that they need to show the world how bad democratic abd Capitalist policies are, and decided that they will have to attack the police to create a masacre to enable them to get international support with the use of the Liberal media.
They got Sangomas (Witch doctors) and used the intestines of the killed security officers to make muti (medicine) to be bullet proof.

They incited the protestors to arm, and attack the police the next morning.
The "Protesters" ruched the cops, shooting handguns at the cops, and the majority Black police fired back with assault rifles, shooting wild and uncontrolably, not knowin how to ahndle a firearm, almost shot their commanding officers, and their own feet. They were so flippen scared, they sht themselfs, some even ran away.

The Liberal Media, BBC, CNN, E news, Aljaria etc, wes first to show the footage of the world on how the Police "Murdered" these poor inocent people. The Government fired police, paid the families of the dead, and Lonmin had to settle for millions.
Today Marikana isd known for these "Martyrs" who lost their lives in a "Struggle" against "White Capital".
So the truth gets swept under the carpet, and heroes are made of low life rubbish.

Nice!

 

[SA Huguenot]

@SA Huguenot

During Jesus’s ministry, the followers of Christ fell roughly into two categories: (a) itinerants who were properly "disciples", including but not limited to the twelve apostles, and gave up all private possessions to travel with Christ and (b) householders, who weren’t ‘disciples’ per se but were still part of the movement and aided through donations while retaining private dwellings.

The latter, householders, were people like Mary and Martha of Bethany and their brother Lazarus. Never called ‘disciples’ but certainly followers in a looser sense.

Jesus’ command in Luke 14:33 “So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your [private] possessions", was, in the the context of the early church, unequivocal. You actually, according to the bare letter of the command, could not become a proper disciple otherwise. The Greek literally says that one is incapable of becoming a follower of Christ.

After Pentecost, for a time, the apostles imposed the apostolic way of life upon the entire church in Jerusalem. Afterwards, it became confined largely to monasteries.

Why do you suppose the apostles had a “ common purse ” with Judas Iscariot appointed as the dispenser, rather than individual purses? (Judas, being a bad egg, exploited his position as keeper of the common fund of pooled money and resources to enrich himself, behind the scenes. Like Ananias and Sapphira, he wanted to have some of it for his own personal use and pleasure):

He [Judas] said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it - John 12:6

Some thought that, because Judas had the common purse, Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the festival”; or, that he should give something to the poor. - John 13:29​

The early church practised not merely a communality of use - so-called “consumer communism” - but real and effective communality of ownership as well, as in Benedictine monasteries till this day. This includes but extends beyond the Acts passage cited by @Left Coast, for instance in the 1st Epistle to Timothy, the Deutero-Pauline author writes 6:18 -19, “To work the good, having their riches in good deeds, readily giving away, communalists, Storing for themselves the treasury of a good foundation for the future.”

The Greek word translated above as ‘communalist’ is κοινωνικόυς (koinōnikous): it is often mistakenly translated as “generous” or “sharing”; but, κοινωνικός (koinōnikos) actually refers to something held in common trust or communally owned.

For good reason, therefore, has the Eastern Orthodox scholar and NT translator Professor David Bentley Hart stated in his marginal notes to this verse: “A property that is koinōnikon is something held in common or corporately, and therefore a person who is koinōnikos is certainly not just someone who occasionally makes donations at his own discretion…it might better be translated either as “belonging to the community”. In fact, it would probably be accurate to render the term here as “communists.””.

Of course, no NT translation opts for 'communists' on account of - uh - well 'reasons' let's just say.

Thank you very much.
I love it when a person dies an investigation on some fact.
Greetings.

 

[Left Coast]

It wasn't that Ananias and Sapphira refused to give, but that they lied by saying that they gave everything but withheld some of what they had back.

Appears it was a combo:

Ananias,” Peter asked, “why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? Acts 5:3

 

[HonestJoe]

What do you say, where am I wrong?

You're mixing up electoral systems and economic systems. Democracy is the former while socialism is the latter. It is perfectly possible to have a Socialist Democracy, a Socialist Dictatorship,a Capitalist Democracy or a Capitalist Dictatorship. Democracy says nothing either way about how the economy is run, including any taxation or wealth distribution. The opposite of socialism would be free-market capitalism.

All developed countries today have a mixed economy, with elements of capitalism and socialism. The taxation of the "rich" and distribution to the "poor" is pretty much exactly the systems we've long had in place and no rich people have run out of money as a result (not least because it's usually income being taxed rather than actual wealth). State ownership is limited though and most of our economies are based on private businesses.

In true socialism, there would be no taxation since most or all of the national wealth would be owned by the state and the needs of all the people would be paid for directly from that. It probably wouldn't work, though mainly due to human flaws rather than any fundamental issue with the concept. True free-market capitalism wouldn't work for much the same reasons. That's exactly why our mixed systems have been long established and largely unchanged and why developing countries tend to move in that direction too, even those like Russia and China which were historically Communist.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Appears it was a combo:

Ananias,” Peter asked, “why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? Acts 5:3

In verse 4 Peter says that "you have not lied to men but to God". The focus is on the lie. Verse explains what he was lying about.

 

[Nakosis]

I loved this statement by a OP, and thought it might be a nice thread.


I tend to disaggree.

1. Democracy is the practice where the people collectively ellect their leaders and allow these leaders to distribute the taxes to where the country needs it for their bennefit.
2. Sociliasts deceive everyone in believing that their policy of distributing the wealth to everyone will be the answer to get rid of inequality concerning the estates of the people.

Now the outcome will be.

1. Democracy will allow the rich to get richer, thereby allowing anyone in the country to reach their full potential. Obviously the able and hardworking will achieve great rewards, and the not so intelligent and hard working person will at least have employment.
2. The socialist will tax the people they call "Rich" and give to those they call "Poor". However, they will be the guys who will collect the money, and who decide who is rivch and poor. Eventually the "Rich" sitizen's money will run out, and the government will sit with a "poor" economy where the capital of the country was misusedon political promises such as Equal Pay, free Medical, Free education, free water and free electricity. Once this happens, the country is bancrupt, because the "Rich businussmen" just dont have any recources to continue. In this case the socialists make draconical laws and eventually ban all other political parties who do not want to continue with socilaism.

And Bang goes the country.
If you think the police in the USA is somewhat heavy handed, fck, go to Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mosambique, Venezuela, Quba, North Corea, China!
I grew up with people who fled from Poland, Romenia, Russia, East Germany who were under communist rule.
Do not even try to tell me that Communism does not adhere to socialism. Socialism is the economic constitution of Communism.

Furthermore, The Christians also paid taxes, but when it came to social reform, they were charitable. The Government never took the rich persons' capital and gave to to who they thought needed it. Socialism and Christianity is incompatable.


What do you say, where am I wrong?

I would think communist but not in a political sense. IOW, not as a means of governance. Communism or socialism is fine as long as it doesn't have the weight of government behind it. Personally, I think Christians ought to be apolitical. The ruling of the land should not be their concern. If they want to voluntarily share what they have then that is their choice. Government mandating "good" acts, it is no longer a good action on your part if it is something you are being forced to do.

 

[Tambourine]

The Police in The USA are the best in the World.
Call them whilst they still have gass in their vehicles.
This defunding will be detrimental to your freedom from your Church Muggers.

I'm not American.

 

[Left Coast]

In verse 4 Peter says that "you have not lied to men but to God". The focus is on the lie. Verse explains what he was lying about.

Contextually, both appear problematic. The full text of verse 4 says:

"While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!”

So the focus was not merely that he lied, but that holding back his possessions was selfish.

 

[Stevicus]

I loved this statement by a OP, and thought it might be a nice thread.


I tend to disaggree.

1. Democracy is the practice where the people collectively ellect their leaders and allow these leaders to distribute the taxes to where the country needs it for their bennefit.
2. Sociliasts deceive everyone in believing that their policy of distributing the wealth to everyone will be the answer to get rid of inequality concerning the estates of the people.

Now the outcome will be.

1. Democracy will allow the rich to get richer, thereby allowing anyone in the country to reach their full potential. Obviously the able and hardworking will achieve great rewards, and the not so intelligent and hard working person will at least have employment.
2. The socialist will tax the people they call "Rich" and give to those they call "Poor". However, they will be the guys who will collect the money, and who decide who is rivch and poor. Eventually the "Rich" sitizen's money will run out, and the government will sit with a "poor" economy where the capital of the country was misusedon political promises such as Equal Pay, free Medical, Free education, free water and free electricity. Once this happens, the country is bancrupt, because the "Rich businussmen" just dont have any recources to continue. In this case the socialists make draconical laws and eventually ban all other political parties who do not want to continue with socilaism.

And Bang goes the country.
If you think the police in the USA is somewhat heavy handed, fck, go to Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mosambique, Venezuela, Quba, North Corea, China!
I grew up with people who fled from Poland, Romenia, Russia, East Germany who were under communist rule.
Do not even try to tell me that Communism does not adhere to socialism. Socialism is the economic constitution of Communism.

Furthermore, The Christians also paid taxes, but when it came to social reform, they were charitable. The Government never took the rich persons' capital and gave to to who they thought needed it. Socialism and Christianity is incompatable.


What do you say, where am I wrong?

Well, first off, there's no conflict between democracy and socialism. A socialist society can either be democratic or non-democratic; one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. Likewise, a capitalist society can be either democratic or non-democratic - or they can even be outright dictatorships.

I've known quite a number of people from former communist countries such as the countries you mention, and my impression is that not everyone is of one like mind on this matter. Some were staunchly against their communist governments, while others had more moderate views, where they might reasonably outline the positives and negatives of living in such a society.

I've also read comparisons between Soviet society and the Russian Empire under the Tsar, and just about every quality of life indicator would show marked improvement under the Soviet government. I'm not saying they were perfect, and I'm in no way denying the atrocities which took place. But I would take issue with any attempts at suggesting that their accomplishments and achievements were absolutely zero. From what you're saying, it's as if they did nothing right at all, that the whole country was a complete disaster where nobody worked, nobody produced, nobody ate, and everybody died.

But there's still people living in these countries, so I guess your assessment here is quite a bit off.

As for Christianity, my point was that, if one believes that God commands people to give a portion of their money to the church or some other charitable organization, then failure to do so could result in some sort of penalty or punishment in the afterlife. So, if the motive is fear of going to Hell for non-compliance, then that might be considered comparable to fears of going to the Gulag (or even fears of going to Federal prison for tax evasion).

"And Bang goes the country."

There are many reasons why any country goes "bang," as empires have fallen and nations have disappeared throughout the course of history. What I find astounding, at least when looking at the major revolutions and other social upheavals in the past few centuries is how avoidable they could have been if only the rulers of those countries had been willing to make just a few reforms.

We've been able to avoid such revolutions in America, at least since the Civil War, although we have had some social upheavals which led to the government making reforms before they turned into full-blown uprisings. These were primarily liberals and progressives favoring these reforms, while the conservatives fought against them.

Had these reforms not been made, then there would have been more disgruntled people and greater support for radical and/or extremist factions. Historians might point to FDR's New Deal or LBJ's Great Society as far-reaching, landmark reforms which satisfied enough of the populace so as to turn them away from any radical communist ideologues. Indeed, many working class people were wont to vilify and despise the communists and what they perceived as a world-wide apparatus to destroy Western Civilization. But by the time of the McCarthy era, U.S. workers didn't really need communism or socialism, as labor unions were strong and the standard of living for working people was improving by leaps and bounds.

It wasn't just about economic systems, as many Americans hated communists more because they saw them as "godless" than anything else. Plus, it was also viewed as a geopolitical threat originating in foreign countries viewed as enemies by our own leaders. For this reason, the official Socialist Party disavowed any connection to the Moscow-led Communist International, and most Americans were aware of the difference that they didn't really see "socialists" as a threat - or at least not with the same level of intensity as communists, since they were seen as traitors working for an enemy foreign government.

But if somebody just wanted better pay for American workers, or even if they advocated for social programs or single-payer healthcare, that wasn't typically viewed as some kind of monstrous "grave threat" that they're viewed nowadays.

Back during the Cold War, a lot of Americans were justifiably afraid of communism and the Soviet Bloc. After all, regardless of anyone's politics, they did have a huge military force at their command. Millions of troops, tens of thousands of nuclear warheads and missiles - along with (I don't recall how many) tanks, bombers, ships, submarines - and Americans thought they were all gunning for us. People really did fear that the Soviets would someday invade or attack us. I think we may have exaggerated their intentions or misunderstood their national security aspirations, but eventually, the threat was curtailed and tensions eased when the Warsaw Pact dissolved and the Soviet Union itself ceased to exist.

Now, all we have to do is worry about Russia, but they're capitalist and Christian now, so there should be no worries, right?

 

[Samael_Khan]

At marikana the Unions made the people believe they can get a 75% increase. The negotiations failed, and the people had an illigal strike, forcing the mine to close down. They kept the supervisors and managers hostage, and eventually let them go for food as they were in the mine.

The Union then incited these people to loot and damage the propperty, and the mine lost millions in revenue and machinery.
The security company eventually got the people out of the mine propperty.
The protesters eventually gathered at the "Marikana koppie", Marikana hill, and started to disrupt any vehicle passing the place on the public road.
They eventually murdered four miners, two police officers, and two security guards. The 2 security officers were skinned alive and burned.
Numerous private vehicles and delivery vehicles were looted and burned. One of my company's vehicles was looted from R400 000 of stock, and burned out at a cost of 1.2 Million Rand.


The Unions then decided that they need to show the world how bad democratic abd Capitalist policies are, and decided that they will have to attack the police to create a masacre to enable them to get international support with the use of the Liberal media.
They got Sangomas (Witch doctors) and used the intestines of the killed security officers to make muti (medicine) to be bullet proof.

They incited the protestors to arm, and attack the police the next morning.
The "Protesters" ruched the cops, shooting handguns at the cops, and the majority Black police fired back with assault rifles, shooting wild and uncontrolably, not knowin how to ahndle a firearm, almost shot their commanding officers, and their own feet. They were so flippen scared, they sht themselfs, some even ran away.

The Liberal Media, BBC, CNN, E news, Aljaria etc, wes first to show the footage of the world on how the Police "Murdered" these poor inocent people. The Government fired police, paid the families of the dead, and Lonmin had to settle for millions.
Today Marikana isd known for these "Martyrs" who lost their lives in a "Struggle" against "White Capital".
So the truth gets swept under the carpet, and heroes are made of low life rubbish.

Nice!

Yeah, the whole Marikana thing sickens me. People constantly appeal to it as if the miners were martyrs but they were pretty much criminals and the police reacted in self defence.

The "protesters" are glorified as martyrs and the truth gets swept under the rug.

For some reason there is an agenda in favour of protesters in which they can do nothing wrong and people automatically favour their side of the argument because it is the "right thing to do" without looking at the facts. There has also been an increase in protests here, which is crippling the economy, and the protesters are so stupid, saying they want increases in salary, when they are making the economy drop by protesting, which would lead to more retrenchments, and less money. Someone is manipulating them to sabotage the country IMO. It is possible that protest is being weaponised here.

Now we have a president who can actually make the country right, since he is a business man, and the politicians are trying to get him ousted, because he is combatting corruption and actually wants to make the country better.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Contextually, both appear problematic. The full text of verse 4 says:

"While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!”

So the focus was not merely that he lied, but that holding back his possessions was selfish.

The way I see it, Peter is questioning why Ananias lied when he owned the proceeds. But yes, as per usual, the NT is not being very specific in its language. I wish it would say explicitly what was wrong and what was not.

 

[Father Heathen]

By modern standards, conservatives would consider Christ's teachings and example to be rather "commie".

 

[Tambourine]

Yeah, the whole Marikana thing sickens me. People constantly appeal to it as if the miners were martyrs but they were pretty much criminals and the police reacted in self defence.

The "protesters" are glorified as martyrs and the truth gets swept under the rug.

For some reason there is an agenda in favour of protesters in which they can do nothing wrong and people automatically favour their side of the argument because it is the "right thing to do" without looking at the facts. There has also been an increase in protests here, which is crippling the economy, and the protesters are so stupid, saying they want increases in salary, when they are making the economy drop by protesting, which would lead to more retrenchments, and less money. Someone is manipulating them to sabotage the country IMO. It is possible that protest is being weaponised here.

Do you think property damage should warrant the death penalty?

 

[Vouthon]

In verse 4 Peter says that "you have not lied to men but to God". The focus is on the lie. Verse explains what he was lying about.

But what motivated them to 'lie' and hold back the full proceeds, keeping a portion for themselves rather than surrendering 'everything' in common as with the rest of the early Jerusalemite believers? Covetousness and the 'love of money' according to the Patristic commentaries on this scriptural scene.

Consider St. John Chrysostom (347-407) in his Sermon XII on Acts:

The writer is now about to relate the affair of Ananias and Sapphira, and in order to show that the man’s sin was of the worst description, he first mentions him who performed the virtuous deed; that, there being so great a multitude all doing the same, so great grace, so great miracles, he, taught by none of these, but blinded by covetousness, brought destruction upon his own head.... Do you see how many evils spring from love of money? “And great fear, it is said, came on all them that heard these things.” (v. 5.) That man was punished, and others profited thereby.​

St. Jerome (347 CE - 420 CE) read it in the same way:

"...Idolatry is not confined to casting incense upon an altar with finger and thumb, or to pouring libations of wine out of a cup into a bowl. Covetousness is idolatry, or else the selling of the Lord for thirty pieces of silver was a righteous act. Matt. xxvi...Fraud is idolatry, or else they are worthy of imitation who, in the Acts of the Apostles, sold their inheritance, and because they kept back part of the price, perished by an instant doom. Acts v., Ananias and Sapphira. Consider well, my brother; nothing is yours to keep. “Whosoever he be of you,” the Lord says, “that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.” Luke xiv. 33. Why are you such a half-hearted Christian?" (Letter to Heliodorus)


"If therefore you will to be perfect and desire to be as the prophets, as the apostles, as Christ Himself, sell not a part of your substance (lest the fear of want become an occasion of unfaithfulness, and so you perish with Ananias and Sapphira Acts v.) but all that you have. And when you have sold all, give the proceeds not to the wealthy or to the high-minded but to the poor. Give each man enough for his immediate need but do not give money to swell what a man has already. " (Letter to Pamachius)


"I think it unnecessary to warn you against covetousness since it is the way of your family both to have riches and to despise them. The apostle too tells us that covetousness is idolatry, Eph. v. 5. and to one who asked the Lord the question: “Good Master what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” He thus replied: “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me.”Matt. xix. 16, 21. Such is the climax of complete and apostolic virtue—to sell all that one has and to distribute to the poor, Luke xviii. 22. Cf. Letter CXIX. § 4. and thus freed from all earthly encumbrance to fly up to the heavenly realms with Christ...

We read in the Acts of the Apostles how, while the blood of the Lord was still warm and believers were in the fervour of their first faith, they all sold their possessions and laid the price of them at the apostles’ feet (to shew that money ought to be trampled underfoot) and “distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.” Acts iv. 34, 35.

But Ananias and Sapphira proved timid stewards, and what is more, deceitful ones; therefore they brought on themselves condemnation. For having made a vow they offered their money to God as if it were their own and not His to whom they had vowed it; and keeping back for their own use a part of that which belonged to another, through fear of famine which true faith never fears, they drew down on themselves suddenly the avenging stroke, which was meant not in cruelty towards them but as a warning to others... From the time of your dedication to perpetual virginity your property is yours no longer; or rather is now first truly yours because it has come to be Christ’s."

(Letter to Demetrius)​

So, for Jerome also idolatrous 'fraud' and half-hearted Christianity that shirked from 'forsaking all' and keeping nothing to oneself appears to have been the inferrance one should take from the 'cautionary tale'. Indeed, he often puts the 'timid stewardship' and 'keeping back for their own use what belonged to another' first in priority.

And indeed St. John Cassian (c. AD 360 – c. 435) as well:

"Lastly, the chief of the apostles, taught by these instances, and knowing that one who has any avarice cannot bridle it, and that it cannot be put an end to by a large or small sum of money, but only by the virtue of renunciation of everything, punished with death Ananias and Sapphira, who were mentioned before, because they had kept back something out of their property, that that death which Judas had voluntarily met with for the sin of betraying the Lord, they might also undergo for their lying avarice. Cf. Acts v.

How closely do the sin and punishment correspond in each case! In the one case treachery, in the other falsehood, was the result of covetousness. In the one case the truth is betrayed, in the other the sin of lying is committed. For though the issues of their deeds may appear different, yet they coincide in having one and the same aim. For the one, in order to escape poverty, desired to take back what he had forsaken; the others, for fear lest they might become poor, tried to keep back something out of their property, which they should have either offered to the Apostle in good faith, or have given entirely to the brethren.

And so in each case there follows the judgment of death; because each sin sprang from the root of covetousness. And so if against those who did not covet other persons’ goods, but tried to be sparing of their own, and had no desire to acquire, but only the wish to retain, there went forth so severe a sentence, what should we think of those who desire to amass wealth, without ever having had any of their own, and, making a show of poverty before men, are before God convicted of being rich, through the passion of avarice?"

(Book VII, Ch. XXV)​

Thus, the ancient exegetes of the Patristic era (closer in time to the text and its milieu) appear to have discerned both senses as has @Left Coast whereas more contemporary exegetes have tended to focus uniquely upon the sinfulness of the 'lie' to the exclusion of any hint of reproachment of the actual 'stinginess'. Hmm. Rather convenient if you ask me.........

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The Police in The USA are the best in the World.
Call them whilst they still have gass in their vehicles.
This defunding will be detrimental to your freedom from your Church Muggers.

How on earth do you assess US police as 'the best in the world'?

It's about the fifth time today I've seen someone make an unsubstantiated claim about the US being 'the best' at something. And not by Americans, either.

So...how do you rate it #1?

 

[QuestioningMind]

I loved this statement by a OP, and thought it might be a nice thread.


I tend to disaggree.

1. Democracy is the practice where the people collectively ellect their leaders and allow these leaders to distribute the taxes to where the country needs it for their bennefit.
2. Sociliasts deceive everyone in believing that their policy of distributing the wealth to everyone will be the answer to get rid of inequality concerning the estates of the people.

Now the outcome will be.

1. Democracy will allow the rich to get richer, thereby allowing anyone in the country to reach their full potential. Obviously the able and hardworking will achieve great rewards, and the not so intelligent and hard working person will at least have employment.
2. The socialist will tax the people they call "Rich" and give to those they call "Poor". However, they will be the guys who will collect the money, and who decide who is rivch and poor. Eventually the "Rich" sitizen's money will run out, and the government will sit with a "poor" economy where the capital of the country was misusedon political promises such as Equal Pay, free Medical, Free education, free water and free electricity. Once this happens, the country is bancrupt, because the "Rich businussmen" just dont have any recources to continue. In this case the socialists make draconical laws and eventually ban all other political parties who do not want to continue with socilaism.

And Bang goes the country.
If you think the police in the USA is somewhat heavy handed, fck, go to Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mosambique, Venezuela, Quba, North Corea, China!
I grew up with people who fled from Poland, Romenia, Russia, East Germany who were under communist rule.
Do not even try to tell me that Communism does not adhere to socialism. Socialism is the economic constitution of Communism.

Furthermore, The Christians also paid taxes, but when it came to social reform, they were charitable. The Government never took the rich persons' capital and gave to to who they thought needed it. Socialism and Christianity is incompatable.


What do you say, where am I wrong?

The socialist will tax the people they call "Rich" and give to those they call "Poor". However, they will be the guys who will collect the money, and who decide who is rivch and poor. Eventually the "Rich" sitizen's money will run out, and the government will sit with a "poor" economy where the capital of the country was misusedon political promises such as Equal Pay, free Medical, Free education, free water and free electricity. Once this happens, the country is bancrupt, because the "Rich businussmen" just dont have any recources to continue. In this case the socialists make draconical laws and eventually ban all other political parties who do not want to continue with socilaism.

Please DO enlighten us as to how long it takes for a 'socialist' nation to destroy itself in this fashion? After all, the Scandinavian countries have been successfully using democratic socialism for well over half a century now and they seem to be doing just fine. That is to say, at least they don't have the gross discrepancies between the rich and poor that we have here... nor do they have millions going bankrupt each year due to crushing medical debt. So tell us, how much longer before Sweden is destroyed due to their horrible socialist policies?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Do you think property damage should warrant the death penalty?

Depends on the property. If they are destroying a statue then no. If the damage is to a hospital or something that will cripple the economy then yes. This is because the destruction of these properties have a direct effect on people's lives.

The protests I am referring to are the ones here in South Africa which is a whole different ball game to the protests in America.

Also I am pro protest depending on the context of the protest.

 

[Samael_Khan]

But what motivated them to 'lie' and hold back the full proceeds, keeping a portion for themselves rather than surrendering 'everything' in common as with the rest of the early Jerusalemite believers? Covetousness and the 'love of money' according to the Patristic commentaries on this scriptural scene.

Consider St. John Chrysostom (347-407) in his Sermon XII on Acts:

The writer is now about to relate the affair of Ananias and Sapphira, and in order to show that the man’s sin was of the worst description, he first mentions him who performed the virtuous deed; that, there being so great a multitude all doing the same, so great grace, so great miracles, he, taught by none of these, but blinded by covetousness, brought destruction upon his own head.... Do you see how many evils spring from love of money? “And great fear, it is said, came on all them that heard these things.” (v. 5.) That man was punished, and others profited thereby.​

St. Jerome (347 CE - 420 CE) read it in the same way:

"...Idolatry is not confined to casting incense upon an altar with finger and thumb, or to pouring libations of wine out of a cup into a bowl. Covetousness is idolatry, or else the selling of the Lord for thirty pieces of silver was a righteous act. Matt. xxvi...Fraud is idolatry, or else they are worthy of imitation who, in the Acts of the Apostles, sold their inheritance, and because they kept back part of the price, perished by an instant doom. Acts v., Ananias and Sapphira. Consider well, my brother; nothing is yours to keep. “Whosoever he be of you,” the Lord says, “that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.” Luke xiv. 33. Why are you such a half-hearted Christian?" (Letter to Heliodorus)


"If therefore you will to be perfect and desire to be as the prophets, as the apostles, as Christ Himself, sell not a part of your substance (lest the fear of want become an occasion of unfaithfulness, and so you perish with Ananias and Sapphira Acts v.) but all that you have. And when you have sold all, give the proceeds not to the wealthy or to the high-minded but to the poor. Give each man enough for his immediate need but do not give money to swell what a man has already. " (Letter to Pamachius)


"I think it unnecessary to warn you against covetousness since it is the way of your family both to have riches and to despise them. The apostle too tells us that covetousness is idolatry, Eph. v. 5. and to one who asked the Lord the question: “Good Master what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” He thus replied: “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me.”Matt. xix. 16, 21. Such is the climax of complete and apostolic virtue—to sell all that one has and to distribute to the poor, Luke xviii. 22. Cf. Letter CXIX. § 4. and thus freed from all earthly encumbrance to fly up to the heavenly realms with Christ...

We read in the Acts of the Apostles how, while the blood of the Lord was still warm and believers were in the fervour of their first faith, they all sold their possessions and laid the price of them at the apostles’ feet (to shew that money ought to be trampled underfoot) and “distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.” Acts iv. 34, 35.

But Ananias and Sapphira proved timid stewards, and what is more, deceitful ones; therefore they brought on themselves condemnation. For having made a vow they offered their money to God as if it were their own and not His to whom they had vowed it; and keeping back for their own use a part of that which belonged to another, through fear of famine which true faith never fears, they drew down on themselves suddenly the avenging stroke, which was meant not in cruelty towards them but as a warning to others... From the time of your dedication to perpetual virginity your property is yours no longer; or rather is now first truly yours because it has come to be Christ’s."

(Letter to Demetrius)​

So, for Jerome also idolatrous 'fraud' and half-hearted Christianity that shirked from 'forsaking all' and keeping nothing to oneself appears to have been the inferrance one should take from the 'cautionary tale'. Indeed, he often puts the 'timid stewardship' and 'keeping back for their own use what belonged to another' first in priority.

And indeed St. John Cassian (c. AD 360 – c. 435) as well:

"Lastly, the chief of the apostles, taught by these instances, and knowing that one who has any avarice cannot bridle it, and that it cannot be put an end to by a large or small sum of money, but only by the virtue of renunciation of everything, punished with death Ananias and Sapphira, who were mentioned before, because they had kept back something out of their property, that that death which Judas had voluntarily met with for the sin of betraying the Lord, they might also undergo for their lying avarice. Cf. Acts v.

How closely do the sin and punishment correspond in each case! In the one case treachery, in the other falsehood, was the result of covetousness. In the one case the truth is betrayed, in the other the sin of lying is committed. For though the issues of their deeds may appear different, yet they coincide in having one and the same aim. For the one, in order to escape poverty, desired to take back what he had forsaken; the others, for fear lest they might become poor, tried to keep back something out of their property, which they should have either offered to the Apostle in good faith, or have given entirely to the brethren.

And so in each case there follows the judgment of death; because each sin sprang from the root of covetousness. And so if against those who did not covet other persons’ goods, but tried to be sparing of their own, and had no desire to acquire, but only the wish to retain, there went forth so severe a sentence, what should we think of those who desire to amass wealth, without ever having had any of their own, and, making a show of poverty before men, are before God convicted of being rich, through the passion of avarice?"

(Book VII, Ch. XXV)​

Thus, the ancient exegetes of the Patristic era (closer in time to the text and its milieu) appear to have discerned both senses as has @Left Coast whereas more contemporary exegetes have tended to focus uniquely upon the sinfulness of the 'lie' to the exclusion of any hint of reproachment of the actual 'stinginess'. Hmm. Rather convenient if you ask me.........

It would be interesting to see what would have happened if Ananias was said to have just outrightly said that he was keeping some of the proceeds.

 

[sun rise]

@Vouthon presents an excellently documented exposition of the attitude of the early Church on property. And it's because of such statements as he's posted here that there is such as thing as Christian Socialism Christian Socialism | political philosophy

distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.”

Let's see. Where have I read that before?

I have to wonder if Marx knew about that statement when he wrote his famous treatise.