Remember when Reagan asked...

[kj]

August West wrote:
[quote=Oxford English Dictionary]
Socialism, noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.

Seems pro socialist to me.
Very different. Christianity is not a political and economic theory. The def'n of socialism doesn't say anything about sharing all your possessions with others. The means of production...etc. are owned by the community as a whole. Your loaf of bread isn't owned by everyone. Acts assumes free agency (you own the bread, but choose to give it away), socialism is a contract (I think), but can you opt out? In fact, in a socialistic society you are equal to everyone, in acts you have less than others. Yes, I've read all the discussions, and I will vehemently argue that capitalism has absolutely no Biblical basis either. That's not where I'm coming from. It's really a case of apples and oranges. kj.

[rjmacs]

kj wrote:
[quote=August West]
[quote=Oxford English Dictionary]
Socialism, noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.

Seems pro socialist to me.
Very different. Christianity is not a political and economic theory.
This is true in the case of Western modernity, but in fact many early Christians considered their faith to be the core of both their political and economic lives. Not disagreeing with your statement in the present context, but it has not always been so. In modern times, the remnants of these traditions exist in voluntary lay religious communities (Sant'Egidio, for example), convents and monasteries, etc. Members exist alongside modernity, but govern themselves by different standards.

[$tevie]

kj wrote:
[quote=$tevie]
[quote=kj]
[quote=$tevie]
The discussion isn't about taxes. It's about ginormous CEO pay checks. Do try to keep up.

If this is all about ginormous ceo paychecks, is rolando saying that these rich people are all christians, so it's hard to understand why they aren't more generous with their money? Or is he saying Tea Party people should be for paying more taxes because they are all christians? Either way.... kj. How do you get from Acts 4 to taxes? Why are you assuming that those passages are talking about taxation? Ever hear of "charity"? There was nothing in those passages about the government being in charge of what was going on.
How did rolando get from big ceo paychecks to Acts 4? Why did Gute seemingly agree? Seems Roland took Acts 4 to be pro-socialism. Or or at least gov't redistribution of wealth in some form. Btw, did you notice I mentioned charity in my post? kj.
You keep insisting on inserting the government into Acts.

I think it was very clear that the idea was that the people in those passages were sharing out of the goodness of their hearts. Why you think there is some hidden undercurrent regarding government interference is beyond my ken. Do you think the entire Bible is filled with hidden messages regarding politicians and government policy? Does this keep you awake nights? lap:

I think the point was that CEOs who grab massive percentages of a company's profits are Bad People. Easy enough to grasp.

[Gutenberg]

I do so sincerely apologize, kj. My response was tongue-in-cheek, and I forgot you had had a humor-ectomy and no longer recognize a wry comment. Forgive me, my learned friend.

[kj]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=kj]
[quote=August West]
[quote=Oxford English Dictionary]
Socialism, noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.

Seems pro socialist to me.
Very different. Christianity is not a political and economic theory.
This is true in the case of Western modernity, but in fact many early Christians considered their faith to be the core of both their political and economic lives. Not disagreeing with your statement in the present context, but it has not always been so. In modern times, the remnants of these traditions exist in voluntary lay religious communities (Sant'Egidio, for example), convents and monasteries, etc. Members exist alongside modernity, but govern themselves by different standards.
Actually I would agree that a large percentage of Christians still consider their beliefs important in any facet of their life (political or economic). But Christianity is a religion, not a political or economic system. The idea that bothers me here is that many consider paying taxes some sort of charity or a sign of generosity. It's not, because it's required. Christians should pay their taxes, but charity goes way beyond that. And Jesus was most definitely neither a socialist nor a capitalist. All the talk on either side of this argument is missing the point. kj.

[kj]

Gutenberg wrote:
I do so sincerely apologize, kj. My response was tongue-in-cheek, and I forgot you had had a humor-ectomy and no longer recognize a wry comment. Forgive me, my learned friend.

I'm not offended, I don't want an apology, I just disagree with the idea represented by rolando (and implied by others). I hope that's ok.

Stevie, the discussion had clearly broadened from the original "rich people bad" argument. I think what was being suggested is that our gov't can promote a more egalitarian society through the use of taxes (hence rolando's mentioning the tea party). I won't argue for or against that goal, but I will say that Jesus was not suggesting anything like that. kj.

[$tevie]

Well, I cannot find a proposal that "our gov't can promote a more egalitarian society through the use of taxes" anywhere on this thread. You are the one who brought taxes into the mix. But obviously you are determined to believe that people were surreptitiously discussing taxes in their secret code, so that's that.

[Grace62]

...How the McEconomy bombed the American worker...

An interesting look at why this income disparity is happening, and the long term effects...

[rjmacs]

kj wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
[quote=kj]
Very different. Christianity is not a political and economic theory.

This is true in the case of Western modernity, but in fact many early Christians considered their faith to be the core of both their political and economic lives. Not disagreeing with your statement in the present context, but it has not always been so. In modern times, the remnants of these traditions exist in voluntary lay religious communities (Sant'Egidio, for example), convents and monasteries, etc. Members exist alongside modernity, but govern themselves by different standards.
Actually I would agree that a large percentage of Christians still consider their beliefs important in any facet of their life (political or economic). But Christianity is a religion, not a political or economic system. The idea that bothers me here is that many consider paying taxes some sort of charity or a sign of generosity. It's not, because it's required. Christians should pay their taxes, but charity goes way beyond that. And Jesus was most definitely neither a socialist nor a capitalist. All the talk on either side of this argument is missing the point. kj.
Part of what i was trying to say is that there actually still are places (granted, they are mostly isolated communities) where Christianity actually comprises both the political and economic system in place. The economy of an abbey generally reflects that of a commune, where everything is shared and there is virtually no private property. The political authorities are established by divine practice, and the procedures through which the community is governed follow religious, not secular, principles. Again, i'm not saying this is commonplace, but i often find it instructive to note the exception. Just because Christianity most places is not a political and economic system doesn't mean that Christianity is never a political and economic system.

I agree that Christians are duty-bound to pay their taxes (Romans 13:7), but they are also required to be charitable (2 Corinthians 8:3 and Acts 11:29, for example), though many of the New Testament references focus on supporting other believers. Of course there's little question that Jesus himself promoted acts of personal generosity and selflessness that exceed our normal definition of 'charity,' but certainly encompass it. You're right - Jesus was neither a socialist nor a capitalist, and he emphasized that over-emphasis on political or religious systems can distract us from the fundamental responsibility we have to love one another.

[August West]

kj wrote:
But Christianity is a religion, not a political or economic system.

Socialism and Christianity are both ideologies, drawing comparisons is possible.

kj wrote:
And Jesus was most definitely neither a socialist nor a capitalist.

I believe Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew, a minor bother to the Roman occupiers, and, as such, an executed criminal. But any conjecture about Jesus' identity is just that.