Socialism

[mike182d]

To whom did God give the task to feed His sheep, Peter or Caesar?

Excellent! I hope you don’t mind, but I may have to use that in future discussions.

 

[Evangel]

I disagree. We already live in a society in which “compelled charity” is enforced by the state. I don’t know about you, but for my income I am taxed 52% (quite a sizable portion of ones income). These funds are taken from us to provide for the collective needs of the state.

Should taxes be given “freely” on a voluntary basis?

Your query just seems to be setting up a strawman. The state has certain key obligations recognized by the Church. It has the right to raise funds to meet those obligations. “Collective needs of the state” that are outside those obligations can be quite immoral, but that’s a different thread.

The compelled charity of socialism is neither charity nor legitimate state funding.
Taxation (as a concept) for meeting the legitimate obligations of the state is acceptable.

 

[mike182d]

Interesting side note: very *few *in the Roman Empire were wealthy and there was no middle class. Most of the people Jesus spoke to about giving everything to the poor were actually “poor” themselves, especially by today’s standards.

 

[mike182d]

The main problem with socialism is that it equates personal worth with social status. This is entirely contrary to the message of Christ. In fact, the message of Christ is that it doesn’t matter what your social status is - our worth is found in the eyes of God.

 

[levi86]

This isn’t a call to social equality. Jesus never says to any rich person “give some of what you have to the poor, and keep some for yourself, so that you’re both equal in possessions.” He tells them: give everything to the poor. Jesus was calling people to poverty - not social equality. In so doing, the rich become poor and the poor become rich. Big difference.
.

I’m not entirely sure that made sense . So Christ is calling the rich to poverty, right? So what happens when the rich give away all their money?…they become poor. So now the poor are poor and the rich are poor, therefore that particular society would be free of social stratification

Furthermore, these are personal norms set forth by Christ and not social structures to be implemented by systems of Government

Agreed. Socialism in its purest form seeks to limit state control,. centralisation is a Soviet concept.

 

[Brendan]

Excellent! I hope you don’t mind, but I may have to use that in future discussions.

No problem,

IMHO, this is the entire root of the problem we face, that the Church has effectively delegated it’s role as Charity provider to an entity that, by definition, is incapable of true Charitable works.

There is a decided lack of Divine Providence among all the faithful. Mother Theresa put it best. When a sister she had charged with starting a new mission wondered where the money would come from, Mother Theresa replied “Don’t worry about money, God has plenty of that”

Mother Angelica used the same outlook when starting EWTN, do what is necessary, and God will provide the money.

We get into problems when we focus on treasure on Earth, instead of treasure in Heaven. And Socialism is even worse than Capitalism in focusing on temporal wealth.

We need to worry about Grace and let God handle the rest.

 

[levi86]

This isn’t a call to social equality. Jesus never says to any rich person “give some of what you have to the poor, and keep some for yourself, so that you’re both equal in possessions.”

This isn’t entirely true. Jesus commands the rich to give up their wealth on the assumption that they will in turn be cared for by the Church.

Acts 2:44-45
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 4:34-36
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. **

Furthermore, these are personal norms set forth by Christ and not social structures to be implemented by systems of Government - unless you believe in a system of Government that takes *everything *the rich make and gives it all to the poor.

Agreed. Socialism in its purest form seeks to limit the influence of the state, Centralisation is a Soviet concept.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Read Acts about what happened to the two people who didn’t give all their money to St. Peter

Read Acts again, and you will see:

1. Ananias and his wife died because they lied.
2. The experiment with socialism was a failure.
3. The Christian Community in Jerusalem had to be financially rescued by other communities – because they had consumed their seed corn.

 

[bilop]

Luke 18:20-25
You know the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother.’" And he replied, “All of these I have observed from my youth.” When Jesus heard this he said to him, “There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” But when he heard this he became quite sad, for he was very rich. Jesus looked at him (now sad) and said, **How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! ****For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." **

Why only give part of the quote? This is misleading.

The full quote includes.

26 And they that heard it, said: Who then can be saved? 27 He said to them: The things that are impossible with men, are possible with God

Clearly stating that a rich man can be saved.

Also, if you look at the same episode in Mark 19:

16 And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? 17 Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 20 The young man saith to him: All these I have kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me?

21 Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me. 22 And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. 25 And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved?

26 And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.

It is clear that to be saved he must follow the commandments, to be perfect he would give up everything.

Luckily, we do not have to be perfect to be saved.

God Bless.

 

[levi86]

It is clear that to be saved he must follow the commandments, to be perfect he would give up everything.

Luckily, we do not have to be perfect to be saved.

.

So in your opinion the Christian has two choices, to strive for perfection (which may involve giving up ones wealth), or to retain ones earthly treasures and be content with being imperfect in the eyes of God?

 

[bilop]

So in your opinion the Christian has two choices, to strive for perfection (which may involve giving up ones wealth), or to retain ones earthly treasures and be content with being imperfect in the eyes of God?

We are ALL imperfect in the eyes of God.

Clearly not everyone can give up all their wealth b/c we need wealth to generate income to support ourselves, our families, our Church, and to support charity. If everyone gave up all wealth and property, we would all starve.

Some are called to give up all and live in poverty, and serve the poor, such as Mother Theresa’s order, or Father Groeschel’s order. But they could not do this if there weren’t others who financially supported them and their efforts.

Likewise, there are holy priests, bishops, theologians and lay people who do not live in poverty.

Are those that give up all wordly possesions more holy? Probably. But we can not judge the state of each other souls. And there have been many great Saints who were not poor, some were positively rich.

As the gospels state poverty is not a requirement of salvation. Following the commandments is.

God Bless

 

[vern_humphrey]

We are ALL imperfect in the eyes of God.

Clearly not everyone can give up all their wealth b/c we need wealth to generate income to support ourselves, our families, our Church, and to support charity. If everyone gave up all wealth and property, we would all starve.

Some are called to give up all and live in poverty, and serve the poor, such as Mother Theresa’s order, or Father Groeschel’s order. But they could not do this if there weren’t others who financially supported them and their efforts.

Likewise, there are holy priests, bishops, theologians and lay people who do not live in poverty.

Are those that give up all wordly possesions more holy? Probably. But we can not judge the state of each other souls. And there have been many great Saints who were not poor, some were positively rich.

As the gospels state poverty is not a requirement of salvation. Following the commandments is.

God Bless

The early Church experiment in socialism failed – as Acts clearly shows. One of the consequences was that the Jerusalem Christian community was left impoverished and had to be supported by other communities.

 

[levi86]

The early Church experiment in socialism failed – as Acts clearly shows. One of the consequences was that the Jerusalem Christian community was left impoverished and had to be supported by other communities.

Care to support this assertion with scripture?

 

[levi86]

Clearly not everyone can give up all their wealth b/c we need wealth to generate income to support ourselves, our families, our Church, and to support charity. If everyone gave up all wealth and property, we would all starve.

Couldn’t agree more. A Christian could not “give up everything” without the support of the Church. All I am saying is that the most effective way to serve the poor is to establish collectives that resemble the Church of Acts (post 46) and to donate all available resources to the poor.

Are those that give up all wordly possesions more holy? Probably.

Finally, some validation. It’s not much but ill take it

 

[vern_humphrey]

Care to support this assertion with scripture?

I Corinthians 16:1-4
Now concerning the contribution for the saints; as I have directed the Churches in Galatia, so you are also to do…And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me.

II Corinthians 8:1-4
We want you to know, brethren, about the grace of God which has been shown in the Churches in Macedonia, for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of liberality on their part. For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own free will, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints…

II Corinthians 9:1-2
Now it is superfluous for me to write to you about the offering for the saints, for I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the people of Macedonia, saying that Achaia has been ready since last year, and your zeal has stirred up most of them.

Romans 15:25-26
At present however, I am going to Jerusalem with aid for the saints. For Macedonia and Archaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Couldn’t agree more. A Christian could not “give up everything” without the support of the Church. All I am saying is that the most effective way to serve the poor is to establish collectives that resemble the Church of Acts (post 46) and to donate all available resources to the poor

The most effective way to serve the poor is to educate them and get good jobs for them.

 

[bilop]

Couldn’t agree more. A Christian could not “give up everything” without the support of the Church. All I am saying is that the most effective way to serve the poor is to establish collectives that resemble the Church of Acts (post 46) and to donate all available resources to the poor.

This doesn’t work on a broad scale. When property is held collectively, no one takes care of it. In economics it is called the tragedy of the commons. People only work hard, invest, save for tommorrow if they know they, personally, will benefit from these actions.

The best way to care for the poor is through generous private charity, which the Church, historically has been very good at administering.

Government social programs tend to enforce negative behaviors among the poor, including a sense of entitlement, and sap the means and motivation for private efforts.

 

[urban-hermit]

Read Acts about what happened to the two people who didn’t give all their money to St. Peter

I thought it was because they LIED about the money, saying “here’s all our money”, as opposed to being honest and saying “we do not wish to give you all our money”. I could be wrong though. Check me on that …

 

[levi86]

I Corinthians 16:1-4
Now concerning the contribution for the saints; as I have directed the Churches in Galatia, so you are also to do…And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me.

II Corinthians 8:1-4
We want you to know, brethren, about the grace of God which has been shown in the Churches in Macedonia, for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of liberality on their part. For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own free will, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints…

II Corinthians 9:1-2
Now it is superfluous for me to write to you about the offering for the saints, for I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the people of Macedonia, saying that Achaia has been ready since last year, and your zeal has stirred up most of them.

Romans 15:25-26
At present however, I am going to Jerusalem with aid for the saints. For Macedonia and Archaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem.

You see the need for funds as a sign that the socialist system itself has broken down? Does scripture ever suggest a fault within the system? Who knows what social/ economic strains the church in Jerusalem was under.

By your logic if any town in the US was to struggle, or was to request federal assistance for whatever reason, that this would prove a break down of the free market economy? And that that economic system is fundamentally flawed?

 

[vern_humphrey]

You see the need for funds as a sign that the socialist system itself has broken down? Does scripture ever suggest a fault within the system? Who knows what social/ economic strains the church in Jerusalem was under.

We know the Church tried and abandoned the socialist experiment. We know the members complained about unequal distribution of funds (a characteristic of socialism.) We know that the experiment was in Jerusalem, only – and it is Jerusalem, not Corinith, or Antioch, or any of the other Christian communities that had to be supported by charity from without.

By your logic if any town in the US was to struggle, or was to request federal assistance for whatever reason, that this would prove a break down of the free market economy?

Most federal funding (about 2/3s of the 2008 budget) is in the form of “poverty programs” and similar government lagresse. These apty-named programs go a long way toward spreading and maintaining poverty.

And that that economic system is fundamentally flawed?

By and large, cities are blighted with areas of poverty – where people are supported not by their own jobs, but by the government.