Christianity Conforms More To Communism Than To Capitalism

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Wakka

Super Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,461
4
0
33
One topic of discussion which comes up every so often is the connection between fervent evangelical Christianity and equally fervent anti-communism. In the minds of many Americans, atheism and communism are indelibly linked and political actions opposed to communism have long taken the form of strengthening America's public Christianity.

It was thus that the American government made “In God We Trust” the national motto and put it on all money in the 1950s. It was also for this reason that “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance around the same time.

Because of all this, one gets the impression that the Bible is some sort of treatise on capitalism and Jesus an early venture capitalist. The fact that just the opposite appears to be true is thus very surprising. The book of Acts has two explicit passages depicting the very communistic nature of the early Christian community:

All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)

There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
(Acts 4:34-37)

Is it possible that Marx’s famous line “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” took its inspiration directly from the New Testament? Immediately following this second passage is a very interesting story about a couple, Ananias and Sapphira, who sold a piece of property but only gave the community a portion of the proceeds, keeping some of it for themselves. When Peter confronts them with this, they both fall down and die - leaving the impression (for many people) that they were struck dead.

Killing bourgeoisie land owners who fail to give all of their money to the community? That’s not merely communism, that’s Stalinism.

Of course, in addition to the above, there are many, many statements attributed to Jesus which emphasize doing all that you can to help the poor — even to the point of him recommending that a rich man sell all of his possessions and give the money to the poor if he really wishes to get into heaven. The Old Testament also indicates that something akin to communism is the preferable way to live:

This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat
(Ex. 16:16-18)

It is no wonder, then, that any number of Christian groups have adopted ways of living which, while explicitly based upon biblical stories, are also expressions of communist ideals. Such groups include the Shakers, Mormons, Hutterites and more.

In summary, this isn’t so much a problem with the Bible as it is a problem with the people who claim to follow the Bible and use it as their primary guide to how they should live their lives.

Also, hi guys, haven't been here in a while. :)
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Totally have to disagree based on a couple things.

Communism and Socialism have historically always been accompanied by either a lack of religion or a new religion centered upon the state. I'd liken the similarities with Communism and Socialism to saying that Satanism is like Christianity because it has a set of beliefs and is classified as a religion. The whole problem with these forms of government is that they require a universalist religion - of which Christianity is not. What I do is dependent upon no other man but myself. Christianity is highly individualistic unlike many religions in the sense that the focus is on God and your relationship with the Father. One can be Christian without a local church. Obviously God has not provisioned things this way for us, but in other words the community church attendance does not reflect my salvation.

Unfortunately our culture has been conditioned to understand that helping someone out can involve coerced help. This is where I disagree most with the notion that Christianity is anything like Communism or Socialism.

Luke 6:43-44
For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush.

These two governments are a system of which Christ never sets up. It's not only the intent, but how the entire system is setup that is evil and quite unlike Christianity in its true and pure form. The obligation to give is between the person and God. The obligation is not done through any coerced form, it's freely carried out of the heart in the form of private charity.

The concern is not always with the selling, but with the intent of the heart.

I John 3:17
But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?

Giving existed prior to Communism, so put aside the notion that Communism is just giving because it's much, much more. Commune -ism is for the community; we're not for the community but are for God. Socialism and Communism, like all hallmarks of the enemy, look a lot like the real things, but they fall apart when closely examined.

Do note that until now I have not used the word Capitalism. You cannot attribute any one system to God because it's of this world, I agree. However, where Capitalism beats out Communism every single time is that it does not do away with one's individual right to worship whomever he or she pleases.
 

Wakka

Super Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,461
4
0
33
Communism is indifferent to a person's religion. You can be a Christian if you so please. Venezuela, a soon to be socialist nation, is predominantly Christian. Also, labeling Christianity individualistic is a fallacy. You can have a relationship with Christ regardless the society (IE Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar).

Also, I am strongly convinced (from reading the gospels) that Jesus was not an individualist and promoted communal ethics. (Love your neighbor, disregard money, work for your things, not to exploit others, etc.) Individualism promotes personal interests and material goals.
 

Adstar

New Member
Sep 17, 2009
286
6
0
One topic of discussion which comes up every so often is the connection between fervent evangelical Christianity and equally fervent anti-communism. In the minds of many Americans, atheism and communism are indelibly linked and political actions opposed to communism have long taken the form of strengthening America's public Christianity.

It was thus that the American government made “In God We Trust” the national motto and put it on all money in the 1950s. It was also for this reason that “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance around the same time.

Because of all this, one gets the impression that the Bible is some sort of treatise on capitalism and Jesus an early venture capitalist. The fact that just the opposite appears to be true is thus very surprising. The book of Acts has two explicit passages depicting the very communistic nature of the early Christian community:

All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)

There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
(Acts 4:34-37)

Is it possible that Marx’s famous line “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” took its inspiration directly from the New Testament? Immediately following this second passage is a very interesting story about a couple, Ananias and Sapphira, who sold a piece of property but only gave the community a portion of the proceeds, keeping some of it for themselves. When Peter confronts them with this, they both fall down and die - leaving the impression (for many people) that they were struck dead.

Killing bourgeoisie land owners who fail to give all of their money to the community? That’s not merely communism, that’s Stalinism.

Of course, in addition to the above, there are many, many statements attributed to Jesus which emphasize doing all that you can to help the poor — even to the point of him recommending that a rich man sell all of his possessions and give the money to the poor if he really wishes to get into heaven. The Old Testament also indicates that something akin to communism is the preferable way to live:

This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat
(Ex. 16:16-18)

It is no wonder, then, that any number of Christian groups have adopted ways of living which, while explicitly based upon biblical stories, are also expressions of communist ideals. Such groups include the Shakers, Mormons, Hutterites and more.

In summary, this isn’t so much a problem with the Bible as it is a problem with the people who claim to follow the Bible and use it as their primary guide to how they should live their lives.

Also, hi guys, haven't been here in a while. :)

The basic doctrine of communism requires the mandatory taking of resources off the wealthy and giving it to the whole. But Jesus made it clear that giving must come from the giver who willingly gives. If it is about taking then it is only theft. And that is what communism is, legislated theft.

I add that i do not see capitalism as being a God approved system.

The best system of government was given to the Hebrews when they entered the promised land. Yes they where all given an allotment of land (the basic basis of all wealth) and they where gareneteed to keep that land even if they got into debt (debt was forgiven every 7 years i think and all property was returned) But their personal prosperity was determined by how well they used their allotment of land, how diligent they where in their work. This system at the base was egalitarian but it also needed personal responsibility of each land owner to ensure they got the best result from the basic egalitarian base. Something that communism failed to do was give each person responsibility for the economic resources they where using. They had and have no personal ownership and therefore responsibility in the system. That was the built in flaw with communism. One that was not present in the promised land.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 

Wakka

Super Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,461
4
0
33
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.
You can read more about it here: http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

You keep your property that you worked hard for. Yes, it's your own personal property. The only things that are shared equally are the means of production, ie: factories, railroads, mills, etc. Each person gets a cut of the profit, if you will.
 

Wakka

Super Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,461
4
0
33
2ebwl0y.jpg
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
With all due respect, I think your life experiences and education probably have more to do with this misunderstanding than anything. I think in time you'll see what we're talking about.

Communism is indifferent to a person's religion. You can be a Christian if you so please. Venezuela, a soon to be socialist nation, is predominantly Christian. Also, labeling Christianity individualistic is a fallacy. You can have a relationship with Christ regardless the society (IE Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar).

I don't deal in ideals, I deal in reality. Communism simply won't work without either a lack or religion or a type of religion which places focus on the state. Communism by definition is for the community, not the individual. Look at the historical examples. This system has repeatedly failed because the state has to be the most important element. The focus is never on God, one must give to help the state!

Also, I am strongly convinced (from reading the gospels) that Jesus was not an individualist and promoted communal ethics. (Love your neighbor, disregard money, work for your things, not to exploit others, etc.) Individualism promotes personal interests and material goals.

Does Christ save the whole community at once, or is each person based on his and her personal relationship with the Lord?

Hate to tell you, but it's not anything to do with the giving that's most important. It's your relationship with Christ which is a 100% individual relationship. Wakka's salvation is in no way dependent upon what HammerStone does and so on.

Unfortunately this ideal is all part of the coming deception as it grows daily.
 

Wakka

Super Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,461
4
0
33
I'm saying that it's better to live in a communist state, a true communist state, than in a capitalist one.

My family were born and raised in a socialist state and lived as Christians. They were free to do so, it was protected by the state. Also, what do you know of Marxism aside from what was told to you by your countrymen? It probably was biased and fueled by McCarthyism.
 

Martin W.

Active Member
Jan 16, 2009
817
37
28
70
Winnipeg Canada
Give what you have to the poor??

That can have many meanings, most are incorrect.

The best successful example of giving to the poor has been the Canadian and American experiment of giving the poor freedom in a free land under the capitalist system. It is amazing how much a peasant can accomplish in a couple of hundred years. Especially if the peasants are Christians.


I like the cartoon in wakkas post #9 but the only good solution would be a capitalist free-enterprise solution. The worker should start his own factory and sell the products for $75. He keeps $50 and pays his worker $25.

Soon the worker in the new factory starts his own factory and sells the product for $50. He keeps $25 and pays his worker $25.

Because the population can now buy the product for half price , twice as many are being sold , everyone has a job , factories pop up all over the place , and everybody prospers.

The original factory owner (who sold his product for $100) found a new market as well. He sells diamond encrusted products at a higher price to the new wealthy people created by capitalism.
Soon the diamond mines are prospering too.

There are no poor in North America. Only lazy useless welfare bums created by communist-socialist agendas. Do not be confused.

Martin W.
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'm saying that it's better to live in a communist state, a true communist state, than in a capitalist one.

Well, what about an absolutist Christian monarchy?

Maybe a true Christian theocracy?

Besides, what exactly is a "true" Communist state?

My family were born and raised in a socialist state and lived as Christians. They were free to do so, it was protected by the state. Also, what do you know of Marxism aside from what was told to you by your countrymen? It probably was biased and fueled by McCarthyism.

The McCarthy analogy gets quite old, and with all due respect it does show your conditioning with regards to history.

My parents were born in a Capitalist state and are still freely Christian.
 

01CobraVortech

New Member
May 2, 2010
308
19
0
47
NJ
I think people need to be careful trying to connect or tie Biblical doctrine to secular humanistic ideas or ideologies of government and economics.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
I heard an avowed Socialist the other day criticize Christians because they had a problem with the government increasing their taxes in order to have more money with which "to take care of the poor."

Abuses, questionable programs and political favors aside, he missed the concept altogether.

Americans as a group are the most generous people in the world. They freely give more to charities, hospitals, and organizations for the needy than any other nation on earth, both in total and in per-person average.

But God isn't looking at 'collective' giving. He is looking at the heart and the actions of the individual.

When we stand before God and He seperates the sheep and the goats, I am pretty sure the goats aren't going to get away with, "But Lord, my taxes were increased in order to provide the poor with government housing, Welfare payments and Medicaid coverage." Involuntary charity is an oxymoron.

Likewise, those politicians who will say, "But Lord, I made sure everyone gave more of their money to care for the poor" are going to be in for a surprise, as well. God will likely point out that being generous with other people's money is hardly fulfilling His expectations.
 

jerryjohnson

New Member
Nov 6, 2009
497
39
0
77
I'm saying that it's better to live in a communist state, a true communist state, than in a capitalist one.

Well I guess you have a choice to make.


... Also, what do you know of Marxism aside from what was told to you by your countrymen? It probably was biased and fueled by McCarthyism.


Some of us are older than 19.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
I am a Communist and a Christian. No, that is not an oxymoron.
smile.gif


-- Again, try telling that to the thousands of Christians currently imprisoned in China.



There is no such thing as a 'true communist state.'

In theory is is a great idea, but in practice it has been an absolute travesty.

TENS AND TENS OF MILLIONS and have died and MILLIONS imprisoned trying to further the concept of a 'true communist state.'

Communism means participation is mandatory and there is no such thing as free will.

Just the opposite of Christianity.
 

Wakka

Super Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,461
4
0
33
What happened in the USSR and in China was a dictatorship, quite the opposite to communism. Marxism is an economic system that has very little to do with religion. Much like how capitalism has little to do with religion.