I can’t find evidence of anti-communism in the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That document seems to appeal to Marxist atheism and “denial of human dignity”. Yet there are Christian marxists, and “denial of human dignity…” what does that even mean?

And I haven’t seen any appeal to biblical passages, though I may be wrong.

Under these circumstances, how can I know, as an atheist who doesn’t believe in the sacred authority of the church, that the church is opposing Marxism for theological reasons and not because it has a private interest in doing so, not the least of which is the access it has to vast economic resources?

I framed my question in the most respectful way I can so please don’t flag me
 
Last edited:
No, my concern is anti-communism in the Pages of the Bible.

Este es el sub-foto correcto. Viva la hispanidad, por cierto. Somos hermanos culturales. Soy español
 
Curious11 said:
Under these circumstances, how can I know, as an atheist who doesn’t believe in the sacred authority of the church, that the church is opposing Marxism for theological reasons and not because it has a private interest in doing so, not the least of which is the access it has to vast economic resources?
Click to expand...
What vast economic resources? The Church is supported by donations from the people as it is. But people can only donate because they are able to give of what they have. If everything they had did not belong to them to give…
 
I never said it was. I said priests, in a stateless society, could set up a farm and sustain themselves in a community.
 
The Vatican has a bank and it engages in business, I believe. Not saying it’s wrong, but I think that’s the case. Am I mistaken?
 
Curious11 said:
That document seems to appeal to Marxist atheism and “denial of human dignity”. Yet there are Christian marxists, and “denial of human dignity…” what does that even mean?

And I haven’t seen any appeal to biblical passages, though I may be wrong.
Click to expand...
You are wrong on both accounts which tells me that you have no intention of arguing in good faith.

The document is specifically about liberation theology which is a combination of bible-based social justice and Marxist ideology. A cursory skim of the document reveals an entire section dedicated to biblical interpretations.

Perhaps you don’t want to talk about liberation theology?
 
spiderweb said:
Then you are no longer discussing communism.
Click to expand...
The OP is very adept at the No True Scotsman fallacy.

This conversation is going no where fast. Every time we try to engage him on something he suggests he quickly shifts the goal posts to something else.
 
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)
Click to expand...
In terms of the communalization of personal property in the early church, it would be remiss of us not to keep in mind that the first disciples in Jerusalem actually did relinquish private ownership like Benedictine monks always have done too. The Didache, known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (circa. A.D. 50 - A.D. 80), makes this primitive stance abundantly clear: “share all your possessions with your brother, and do not claim that anything is your own (cf. Acts 2:44-45)”

This has been confirmed in actual doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church from the Middle Ages, as well as by biblical scholarship, i.e. Pope John XXII issued the bull Quia quorundam of 10 November 1324, in which he declared that:
“the Gospel life lived by Christ and the Apostles did not exclude some possessions in common, since living ‘without property’ does not require that those living thus should have nothing in common…And this, to have some things in common in respect of ownership, does not derogate from the highest poverty, according to the statement of the before mentioned Gregory IX..”
Click to expand...
And likewise Pope John XXII in Quia vir reprobus (1329):
In answer to his statement that the sacred Scriptures quoted above [Acts, Chapters 2 and 4] “clearly suggest that the believers had no ownership of any temporal thing, either consumable by use or not consumable by use” [2. 23-], we say: If he means that no believer had individual ownership, what he says is true, in respect of the time of which the Scripture speaks; because Acts 4[:32-] says explicitly “None of them said that anything he possessed was his.” But if he means (as he does mean, as is quite clear from what he puts forward later) that the believers had no ownership of anything even in common, he expressly contradicts these Scriptures, since they say that “to them”, that is to the believers, “all things which they possessed were common” among themselves. [4.10] That this “being common” should be understood in respect of lordship or ownership is plain
Click to expand...
Which is to say, that Our Lord and the apostles only had property in common - no personal possessions. Our Lord expressly mandated this: Luke 14:33: So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions

And, to be fair, how could Our Lord have owned anything for exclusive personal use? Being sinless, he used everything in common with his disciples.
 
Last edited:
Curious11 said:
The Church also would have nothing to fear as long as it was willing to give up property of its productive assets.
Click to expand...
Curious11 said:
Common ownership of the means of production in a classless society, preferrably stateless as well
Click to expand...
Curious11 said:
I said priests, in a stateless society, could set up a farm and sustain themselves in a community.
Click to expand...
No they can’t. By your own definition of communism, They have to give up their assets. They don’t have control of the farm in order to sustain themselves. If they are able to sustain themselves, it is only by the common ownership (which could include Christians or atheists) that permits them to partake of it.

So what your are describing is not communism by your own definition.
 
Last edited:
Welcome,Curious!.
Let us do this, let us start small.
Our Church is like a family built across the ages.
It isn t like we pull a topic,then pull a verse from Scripture,get some glue and that is it!
From the bottom of my heart, and so that this topic renders fruit,take some hours to go the Compendium. Even pick within it what interests you. Read patiently, see the references ,see how the documents refer to Scripture too.
You will find yourself something muchore interesting and deeper that what I can tell you.
You will be guided to understand if you take your time,the prayer is in us.
Loved Spain…loved it. My husband’s mother’s homeland…:hugs:
Ask if you need,but start slowly,Curious.
 
Last edited:
The popular Eastern Orthodox scholar and philosopher David Bentley Hart had to directly grapple with the implications of this when Yale University asked him to translate the New Testament for a new edition (published earlier this year to much acclaim). He found it somewhat disconcerting, as would anyone who approaches the topic of apostolic communism honestly.

See:

The early church’s radicalism, if that is the right word, was impressed upon me repeatedly over the past few years, as I worked on my own translation of the New Testament for Yale University Press.

It was in 1983 that I heard the distinguished Greek Orthodox historian Aristeides Papadakis casually remark in a lecture at the University of Maryland that the earliest Christians were “communists.” In those days, the Cold War was still casting its great glacial shadow across the cultural landscape, and so enough of a murmur of consternation rippled through the room that Professor Papadakis — who always spoke with severe precision — felt obliged to explain that he meant this in the barest technical sense: They lived a common life and voluntarily enjoyed a community of possessions. The murmur subsided, though not necessarily the disquiet.

Not that anyone should have been surprised. If the communism of the apostolic church is a secret, it is a startlingly open one. Vaguer terms like “communalist” or “communitarian” might make the facts sound more palatable but cannot change them. The New Testament’s Book of Acts tells us that in Jerusalem the first converts to the proclamation of the risen Christ affirmed their new faith by living in a single dwelling, selling their fixed holdings, redistributing their wealth “as each needed” and owning all possessions communally. This was, after all, a pattern Jesus himself had established: “Each of you who does not give up all he possesses is incapable of being my disciple” (Luke 14:33).

This was always something of a scandal for the Christians of later ages, at least those who bothered to notice it. And today in America, with its bizarre piety of free enterprise and private wealth, it is almost unimaginable that anyone would adopt so seditious an attitude…

The New Testament’s condemnations of personal wealth are fairly unremitting and remarkably stark: Matthew 6:19-20, for instance (“Do not store up treasures for yourself on the earth”), or Luke 6:24-25 (“But alas for you who are rich, for you have your comfort”) or James 5:1-6 (“Come now, you who are rich, weep, howling out at the miseries that are coming for you”). While there are always clergy members and theologians swift to assure us that the New Testament condemns not wealth but its abuse, not a single verse (unless subjected to absurdly forced readings) confirms the claim.
Click to expand...
(continued…)
 
Well into the second century, the pagan satirist Lucian of Samosata reported that Christians viewed possessions with contempt and owned all property communally. And the Christian writers of Lucian’s day largely confirm that picture: Justin Martyr, Tertullian and the anonymous treatise known as the Didache all claim that Christians must own everything in common, renounce private property and give their wealth to the poor. Even Clement of Alexandria, the first significant theologian to argue that the wealthy could be saved if they cultivated “spiritual poverty,” still insisted that ideally all goods should be held in common.

As late as the fourth and fifth centuries, bishops and theologians as eminent as Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine and Cyril of Alexandria felt free to denounce private wealth as a form of theft and stored riches as plunder seized from the poor. The great John Chrysostom frequently issued pronouncements on wealth and poverty that make Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin sound like timid conservatives. According to him, there is but one human estate, belonging to all, and those who keep any more of it for themselves than barest necessity dictates are brigands and apostates from the true Christian enterprise of charity. And he said much of this while installed as Archbishop of Constantinople.
Click to expand...
 
Curious11 said:
The Vatican has a bank and it engages in business, I believe. Not saying it’s wrong, but I think that’s the case. Am I mistaken?
Click to expand...
Yes, Vatican City has a bank by which it engages in international business. The Church can exist easily without the bank as it did for centuries, but it would not exist easily without donations.
 
I do. In good faith I have just read that part. But I must say I don’t see enough to convince me. No specific bible passages are quoted
 
Last edited:
That denies something very important in the Bible.

" Acts 5:4 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

He was not required to sell it or to give all of it to the Church. He is only condemned for lying.
 
That is simply to say that until they laid it at the apostles’ feet, the proceeds were still under their physical control.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top