Is this socialism?

[aball1035]

In Acts, Peter seems to advocate mandatory socialism. It describes a couple cheating with how much they gave the Church, and therefore they died. "They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. "

This is a hard passage to wrap my mind across. Could somebody clarify this for me? Why would Peter want them to die simply cause they didn’t give all they had to the Church?

 

[MoonChild02]

It’s not socialism. In the passage you are speaking about, which is in Acts chapter 5, it is inferred that this couple promised the Holy Spirit that they would give money, and then took credit for giving all of the proceeds from their house. In reality, they gave only a portion of the charitable act that they boasted they did, taking credit where credit was not due. They had lied to the Holy Spirit and to the community. So, they were called out on it.

The money was not demanded of them. They did not have to give so much. God would have been just as happy had they kept the house. However, they lied to everyone, boasting that they sold their house and gave all proceeds to the apostles.

The moral of the story is: don’t lie to God, and all is good. If you lie to God, then He will punish you as He sees fit.

 

[Usagi]

Right. Ananias and Sapphira lied about the amount they had given. They were not, as far as we can tell, required to give it all – but they said they had, even though they kept some back.

That said, at least some of the early Christian communities do appear to have held their property in common. I believe the Church of Jerusalem is described as doing so at least once, though Christians in other cities (e.g. Corinth) apparently did not follow the same practice.

A small group deciding to hold property in common amongst themselves can work, and is not the same as what “socialism” usually describes. Socialism happens on a larger scale, and generally requires a central government to step in as the administrator of the collective property. Everything may belong to the people in theory, but practically it belongs to “the state,” which more easily leads to corruption/perversion of the whole system.

Usagi

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .

A small group deciding to hold property in common amongst themselves can work, and is not the same as what “socialism” usually describes. . . .

Right. See how the monasteries do it.

 

[James224]

In Acts, Peter seems to advocate mandatory socialism. It describes a couple cheating with how much they gave the Church, and therefore they died. "They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. "

This is a hard passage to wrap my mind across. Could somebody clarify this for me? Why would Peter want them to die simply cause they didn’t give all they had to the Church?

I’ve heard some say Matt 25 is about Capitalism. The Parable of the Talents. Before Capitalism and Socialism, the Church took care of the poor. It still does and the way it does is through the charity of those who have some wealth.

 

[puzzleannie]

In Acts, Peter seems to advocate mandatory socialism. It describes a couple cheating with how much they gave the Church, and therefore they died. "They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. "

This is a hard passage to wrap my mind across. Could somebody clarify this for me? Why would Peter want them to die simply cause they didn’t give all they had to the Church?

no he he is preaching mandatory truth-telling
the sin of Ananias and his wife was lying about their gift, proclaiming publicly that they were giving their all, while privately holding some back. Their own evil intention killed them. The other passage in Acts does not say every Christian brought all their wealth to the apostles–which Peter in fact had not even asked for–but that they brought gifts from their own wealth, each as they were able but in a spirit of gift, not compulsion, and from that the needs of poorer members were provided for. There may have been early communities that did practice a communal sharing of goods, but it was nowhere mandated by the apostles. Even here that is not socialism, which is a political, not spiritual, system.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Charity and tithing is much different than Socialism because one is about meeting the needs of those in need, while Socialism is about government control. Government becomes the god in Socialism, and what happens is politicians get filthy rich while everyone else gets scraps, and politicians control what people get and they control peoples opportunites, which means people do not have the freedom to achieve to their potential. Tithing not only meets the needs of the poor but also keeps the lights on in the parish and funds missionaries.

 

[James224]

Charity and tithing is much different than Socialism because one is about meeting the needs of those in need, while Socialism is about government control. Government becomes the god in Socialism, and what happens is politicians get filthy rich while everyone else gets scraps, and politicians control what people get and they control peoples opportunites, which means people do not have the freedom to achieve to their potential. Tithing not only meets the needs of the poor but also keeps the lights on in the parish and funds missionaries.

Absolutely! As you say, the difference is Charity. Scripture says in the end, charity would grow cold. (Matt 24:12)