S
Socialism among Jesus' disciples
- Thread starter SaintJoeNow
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
V
Viligant_Warrior
Guest
That a very poor understanding of what socialism actually is. Are you unware that socialism is about wealth redistribution? That means the government acts like Robin Hood, rob from the rich and give to the poor. The problem? Eventually you run out "the rich." They the government just robs from everybody. And in socialist countries, despite this Utopian view of socialism, there are still hungry, thirsty, naked, strangers, sick, and those in prison.
I'd suggest you look at what Jesus says we, as His sheep, should do about them -- Hint: He didn't say, "Tell the government to take care of them"(Matthew 25:31-46).
So what do you call what Acts recorded what the Apostles were doing?
32 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.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 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,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
36 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,
37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
Acts 4:32-37
Last edited:
That is called the congregation willingly gathering together to support one another..........not the world. BIG DIFFERENCE between Christian charity and Government ORDERED redistribution of wealth. Anyone who does not understand that has no business arguing the point. But, now, that's just me............
V
Viligant_Warrior
Guest
It's called generosity -- not socialism. If the government were to declare that, by virtue of our combined incomes, my wife and I had to sell off my property in order to feed and clothe the poor, my reaction would neither be generous.
The government forcing us to do such a thing would make the act compulsory, not charitable nor Christlike. In fact, I would be more likely to become mutinous than compliant. That's the difference. The disciples took these actions voluntarily, noncompulsorily, without requirement of church leadership. Government edict carries none of those qualities of charity.
Last edited:
Acts 5:1-2
5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 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.
So if generosity then Ananias had ever right to keep back part or all of the price then right?
Acts 5:3-4
3 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?
4 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.
Peter clear says that Ananias lied to the Holy Ghost, and in verse 4 that Ananias has not lied unto men but unto God.
Since it is written in John 8:42;
Jesus said unto them,If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
And thus in John 4:24;
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Then as written in 1 John 5:7;
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Since it is written in Matthew 1:18;
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was married to Joseph, before she delivered, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Then as written Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
I see your point.
Apparently, after reading several anit-American, anti-Israel threads across these Forums, I got up on the wrong side of the world..........but, thank God, I got up on the right side of right!
Israel has a socialistic universal healthcare system that is so effecient that it has made Israel one of the top countries of the world for healthcare.
V
Viligant_Warrior
Guest
Peter himself said they were under no compunction to give any of the money to the church. What earned them the death penalty is their lie about what they had done. They desired to appear sacrificial and holy by giving so great a price up when they had actually kept some of the sale price for themselves. They didn't have to do squat. They shouldn't have lied about "squatting bigger" than they actually did.
Where did Peter himself say they were under no obligation to give any of the money?
Last edited:
V
Viligant_Warrior
Guest
You quoted it yourself, and you don't know?
Acts 5, NASB
4 "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."
4 "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."
What do you think that means, exactly?
Social responsibility and Socialism are (or at least ought to be) different things. Social responsibility is taught in both the OT and the NT; yet throughout history, many (if not most )of us, who call ourselves believers, have not taken God seriously enough to act on His teaching!
Social responsibility would cause an employer to pay a living wage. A living wage would enable a worker to provide food, clothing, shelter, health care, and a retirement income for a family of 4 or 5; with a little left over for fun. Social responsibility would also motivate employers to provide for the needs of those who are physically unable to work, and to keep prices affordable.
Socialism employes people to redistribute other peoples wealth. Socialism (at least as practiced in the USA) does not foster or require a living wage and does not adequately provide for the needs of those physically unable to work.
When I graduated from High School, minimum wage was $1.00/hour for a 40 hour work week. Most workers earned 2-3 times minimum wage; and work was available. The typical cost of a 3 bedroom house was under $13,000. With 2 members earning just minimum wage, a family of 4 or 5 could meet their daily needs on one minimum wage and buy a home on the other.
Now, in Oregon, Minimum wage is close to $12/hour; and the average cost of a 3 bedroom home is over $90,000. One minimum wage job does not comfortably provide the daily needs of a family of four; and a minimum wage job does not come close to enabling the purchase of a 3 bedroom home.
Social responsibility would cause an employer to pay a living wage. A living wage would enable a worker to provide food, clothing, shelter, health care, and a retirement income for a family of 4 or 5; with a little left over for fun. Social responsibility would also motivate employers to provide for the needs of those who are physically unable to work, and to keep prices affordable.
Socialism employes people to redistribute other peoples wealth. Socialism (at least as practiced in the USA) does not foster or require a living wage and does not adequately provide for the needs of those physically unable to work.
When I graduated from High School, minimum wage was $1.00/hour for a 40 hour work week. Most workers earned 2-3 times minimum wage; and work was available. The typical cost of a 3 bedroom house was under $13,000. With 2 members earning just minimum wage, a family of 4 or 5 could meet their daily needs on one minimum wage and buy a home on the other.
Now, in Oregon, Minimum wage is close to $12/hour; and the average cost of a 3 bedroom home is over $90,000. One minimum wage job does not comfortably provide the daily needs of a family of four; and a minimum wage job does not come close to enabling the purchase of a 3 bedroom home.
And to think some people wonder where the term "ugly American" comes from.
I'll have to notify Prime Minister Harper that invasion by a superpower is immanent. I wonder who we can get to defend us? Maybe our trading partners India and China? That might work! LOL
When I see tirades like this, it makes me glad my grandparents came to a free country like Canada, instead of a military zone like the US.
(Sorry to all your sensible and kind Americans! Sometimes the tar brush gets thrown and you just have to throw it back!)
Besides, our 33 million people wouldn't add much money to your military budget. The US is 10 times more populated than Canada, although I think we really beat you in terms of barren frozen land area!
We love our Canadian allies.
But we do need to account for how the U.S. came to be the world's super power, spending phenomenal blood and treasure in WWII to free people across the ocean, and the defender of democracy around the world. . .until lately.
How did we come to all those resources, character and generosity?
It wasn't by socialism.
We are far more generous to people in other countries than we are to our fellow Americans in our own country. I know so many working people in this country suffering from severe health problems, holding down two to three jobs that don't provide decent benefits, unable to afford insurance, and being charged exorbitant prices that they will never be able to afford for healthcare. More and more jobs are cutting back on benefits, premiums are skyrocketing and medical prices for the simplest of procedures are going through the roof. Your average American is being priced out of basic healthcare. We can't boast about how much we help other countries and then let our own people continue to suffer.
Sister, don't judge us by that guy..........he is not representative of us............just saying
I don't seem to ever hear anyone talking about how money is being managed, what non-essentials it is being spent on, where savings could be achieved, etc. I get the feeling there is a level of entertainment that is seen as due.
Am I wrong here?
Ooooo, ooooo, I know! These people, as had others, made a covenant with God that when they sold their properties/whatever, that they would give a certain amount to Him.............these two (man and wife) broke that covenant with God, and paid the price for doing so. The tried to cheat God by giving Him less than they had vowed to do. However.......GOD DID NOT set the amount they vowed to give, they did.
When people make a covenant with God, that is a very serious thing...........and they WILL be held accountable by God if they break that covenant.
How'd I do?
??? Ok? Is Israel a Socialist Nation? Providing health care to ones citizens can be done by Democratic Republics as well as Socialist Nations. Here in the US, people have had access to health care for a very long time. Even when they could not afford it. Even the poorest of the poor could, at any time, walk into a Hospital Emergency Room and receive medical treatment for whatever their illness/injury was. Even if they could not pay a single nickel.
Our Social Welfare System has provided Medical Care to the poor for many years.
The problem with us, the US, is that our Health Care Insurance is/was very expensive. And the blame for that lies directly on the shoulders of the folks in Washington D.C. who have for many years cow towed to the wishes of Health Care Providers. One very simple way to drastically reduce the cost of Health Care in the US would be for Congress to pass legislation allowing Insurance Companies to sell policies ACROSS State lines. This added competition for customers would drastically reduce the cost to the consumer. Other changes could be made as well which would also benefit the consumer.