Christianity and Marxism: A good mix?

[catbert836]

I've noticed while reading Marx's "The Communist Manifesto" and some of his other works that I recognized something: A lot was from the Bible. The most notable example is the famous maxim "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was from the Acts of the Apostles. Also, most of the social teachings of Marx and Christ are one and the same. The main difference is that Marx advocated a violent revolution, whereas Jesus advocated a more peaceful Ghandi-like approach.
One could argue that they are irreconcilable, since Marx dismissed religion as "the opium of the masses". But it should be noted that Marx was a German Jew who, early in life, was forced to convert to Catholicism to escape persecution. So obviously he was fed up with organized religion. I think it's pretty funny that a lot of Christians (I'm generalizing here) have became the Pharisees and persecutors that their predecessors denounced and a lot of atheists have embraced Jesus' message of freedom, love and tolerance.
Thoughts?

[Nitrogenica]

1. For some reason Christianity and conservative politics have a very

disturbing and long history! There's a reason Jesus was a liberal!

[catbert836]

2. I know. It's very strange

Religion, I think, has been co-opted by its opponents succesfully over hundreds of years. It's about time we started spreading the real message.

[Nitrogenica]

3. I have tried and actually made a fundamentalist co-worker think.

"Cherrypicking the Bible" is what got him!

[catbert836]

5. Good for you!

But there's so many of them out there we need to get to work right away.

[spryker]

29. christianity and conservatism

We have to look at different evils. Fundamentalist islam and various tyrannies are the greater threat today, and conservatism and fundamentalist christianity pale in comparison. As always, the choice in politics is between evils, and one has to to look for the lesser one. One also cannot compare things which basically are beyond comparison, such as Bush to Hitler, Evagelicals to islamists etc..

[Warpy]

4. The shame of Christianity

is that there was a need to invent socialism.

[catbert836]

6. I think that's very sad too

But it is possible, although it will have to be done over a long period of time, to de-fundamentalize, if you will, Christianity.

[youngred]

7. A very good mix

though I am not a Marxist, I am a socialist, and a Christian and have always found the two to be deeply intertwined and connected.

It's not funny that many of todays American Christians have become the pharasies and hypocrites that Jesus railed against. It's sad and pathetic. :-(

[struggle4progress]

47. Christian Socialism is as American as the Pledge of Allegiance.

[kcr]

8. Absolutely

Marxism can mesh very well with the Bible, particulalrly the new testament. If Marx had been a theist, and had managed to get the powe rof the one or more of the churches thrown behind him, history may have been very, very different.

[Telly Savalas]

9. Supposedly Cornel West has attempted to fuse these traditions

I just picked up The Cornel West Reader from the library, but haven't had a chance to read it yet, so I can't really comment more.

For those interested, here's the Wikipedia article on the guy.

[nashville_brook]

10. if you want to do a marxist/xtianity thing, you have to read before

the manifesto. go back to the grundisse -- back to where he was dealing with human nature --before his work with engels.

[catbert836]

13. Yes. I have.

Notice I said "as well as some of his other works". I put down the Manifesto because it's the most well-known.

[Dob Bole]

11. Not exactly, but close....

Marx did get much of his theory from Acts. However, the belief of many Marxists that a war can bring about peace is at odds with Christianity, and is in fact something that Bush has claimed. Another thing Bush has done is applied the "opiate of the people" concept to attract voters from different religous groups.

There is more of a tradition of socialism in Christianity, and Marx was not fond of socialists.

[BoogDoc7]

12. Couple problems...

Acts - nor anywhere in the New Testament - never emphasized it as a form of government. It was a personal decision on the part of believers to share their possessions as needed. It's a personal choice, and not enforced on the body as a whole by a larger entity.

Remember, what Paul said about working and eating.

[trotsky]

14. You bet your ass it was enforced.

What about the couple who withheld some possessions, and as a result, were executed by the group?

[BoogDoc7]

15. Not that...

They were executed for lying, not falsely giving.

[trotsky]

16. Excuse me?

The bible is full of people who lied and who were not killed for it. Some of them were even held up as men of God.

Look at all the Christians who lie, steal, and cheat today and live. If those were severe enough sins back then to warrant death, why are people like Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, and George W. Bush still alive?

This particular example shows their punishment for lying in the context of not giving up all their possessions for the community.

[BoogDoc7]

17. Yeah...

Point made...within the context. However, there is nothing in the text that states that the apostles were forcing the members to give up their possessions, but that it was completely personal choice. I see nowhere in the text that states that the apostles were forcing any form of government or way of life, just "protecting the flock" and upholding God's honor in the matter.

[trotsky]

18. Acts 4:32

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

What part of "all" is difficult to understand?

Acts 4:34-35 - There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

As the bible states, this is how all believers lived. It may have been a personal choice to be a Christian, but once you were, you shared your property with the group unquestioningly - and if you failed, you were killed.

[BoogDoc7]

19. Something missing...

Your argument MIGHT make sense if there was something written of the apostles going to someone and demanding that they sell their property for the good of the Christian community. The final leap that all those who failed were killed is NOT in the text. Ananias and Sapphira had ulterior motives - the text mentions the whole signs and wonders thing going on at the time, and they were trying to buy favor with the apostles. THEY came to the apostles - the "enforcing" entity in this case - NOT the other way around.

This isn't a lesson in the benefits of communism or socialism. It's a lesson in free giving, with the right motives.

[trotsky]

20. You're reading far more into the text than I am.

You are supposing that A&S had "ulterior motives" while Acts 5 mentions nothing of the sort. In fact, take a look at Acts 5:11:

Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Why would that be the case if A&S were simply looking to buy favor? No, this caused fear in the whole church because A&S were Christians too and had simply withheld some of their wealth from the group.

Try not to be too upset - these verses in Acts cause many Christians a good deal of discomfort, as apparently they do you, since they clearly show that the very earliest Christian community was indeed a commune and enforced by the power of God.

[BoogDoc7]

21. Ah, ok...

I see what you're saying on the point, and see I read a little too much.

HOWEVER;

My point remains that there is no evidence in the text that there was forcible removal of property. Yes, A&S withheld for themselves, and lied about their giving, but they were putting what they sold at the feet of the apostles - freely as part of the community.

Are we to share our riches when others have need? YES. However, where in the text does it state that they have the right to demand them of us? I see nothing in the text that implies or is explicit that nothing was FREELY done...which is the difference between this text and actual communism/socialism, which forces the rich to divest themselves of what they own.

[Ando]

22. There were definitely ulterior motives

1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.

3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”

5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

9Peter said to her, “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

You don't see the ulterior motive? They knowingly kept a portion of the proceeds of the sale and presented the remainder as the entire sum. They were trying to look pious and sacrificial to receive public admiration. Verse 4 clearly states that the money was his to disperse as he saw fit. God killed him not because he didn't give the entire sum, but because he lied about giving the entire sum for false piety. There was no requirement to give all of your posessions to the local congregation, those who did were motivated by compassion, not public acclaim.

[trotsky]

23. I repeat: ACTS 4:32

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

They were motivated by requirement of the first Christian community. ALL followed these rules.

[Ando]

24. I repeat: ACTS 5:4

Acts 5:4 explicitly says that the money was his to distribute. He died because he lied about the sale to make it seem like he was donating the entire sum. They simply wanted him to be honest, he could have easily kept the same amount and just told them that (that's why they asked the wife the question they did). Acts 5:4 is plain, Acts 4:32 only says that the believers all did X, it in no way says they were compelled to do X. You could be correct, but the text does not necessitate your interpretation.

[trotsky]

25. Then what you have is a direct contradiction.

In one verse in the same book, it says that no one claimed possessions for their own. In another verse, you claim it says that people did get to keep their possessions and give them up as they saw fit.

How do you resolve this contradiction? Or do bible contradictions not bother you?

[Ando]

26. tomorrow

There is not a contradiction, I'll post again in the morning and explain, gotta run.

[Ando]

27. alright

First of all, that really isn't a contradiction. Yes, it says that no one claimed possessions were their own, but it does not say that it was through decree rather than personal choice. Rather, the text suggests that they all embraced the same attitude of charity and freely shared what they had. This does not mean that they could have kept something for themselves, they just chose not to.

Let me give you an example from my own church. We have a family in the church that has a fairly nice house (well, as nice as a McMansion can be, those things are of Satan :)). While it is their house, it is always open to anyone in the church. They have a basement with a big TV and some games, etc. A lot of people hang out there just to get away from the hectic everyday grind. The father once told me that he didn't view the house as his, it was a blessing given by God and he wanted others to be able to enjoy it as well. That is the spirit of the text. I don't feel that any of my wealth (there's not much!) belongs to me, it all belongs to God. In that sense I try to help out anyone who has a need and I'll open up my house to those who need it as well. You could say my church operated kind of like a commune, but there is no requirement to bring all of your money to the church to be distributed. This happens as a result of personal choice and conviction, the only mandate is scriptural - that we should show charity to those in need.

As for Ananias and Sapphira, their death did not result from not giving the entire proceeds of the sale to the church, they died because they lied about it in order to appear pious.

[trotsky]

30. You have chosen an explanation which glosses over the contradiction.

First it says that no one claimed any possessions as their own. You wiggle out of this universal statement by claiming (though it is not said) that this was "freely" done rather than by decree.

Regardless, ALL Christians did it. And in the case where one couple did not give all their money over, they were struck down by God. I see only one honest way to interpret that.

Because as I pointed out to the other poster, there are PLENTY of other Christians who have lied, and lie to this day, in order to appear pious. If this was such a horrible sin, why hasn't George W. Bush been struck down? Jimmy Swaggart? Jim Bakker? Tom DeLay? Newt Gingrich? Trent Lott? Does God not judge "lying in order to appear pious" to be a capital offense anymore? Did he change his mind?

[Ando]

31. tic tac toe

My assertion that the early church gave freely out of compassion is just as valid, based on the text, as your contention that it was done because of an enforced decree. You still have not explained how Acts 5:4 reinforces your interpretation.

[trotsky]

32. Ah, but I never claimed that.

I never said there was a decree, only that it was enforced that people give up their possessions. At minimum, that is an equally valid interpretation of the text. Someone withheld property, and was killed.

5:4 may not "reinforce" my interpretation, but 4:32 certainly doesn't help yours.

And now you see why there are so many Christian sects. The bible is sufficiently vague enough to accommodate BOTH our interpretations, with no real resolution.

Still, it would have been nice for you to support your interpretation by explaining why "lying to appear pious" was a sin worthy of instant death back then, but par for the course today.

[Ando]

33. it is valid

Your interpretation is a valid one, I just don't happen to agree with it. I merely restate my position that the members of the early church were motivated by compassion and were not externally compelled to give up their posessions.

The Bible is full of instances where certain people, places, or things were made examples of. Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed as a warning. Job was made an example of Faith and perseverence for Satan. Jesus cursed a poor fig tree that just happened to not bear fruit as an example to the disciples. Achan is another good example. Sometimes there just have to be dramatic consequences.

This link might help explain my thoughts a little more:

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/2400.htm

[trotsky]

34. That still doesn't answer my question.

I'm not talking about other stories in the bible.

Your interpretation depends greatly on your claim that A&S were struck down because they were guilty of the terrible sin of "lying to appear pious," not withholding possessions from the church.

Fine. So I ask you, why do Christians today not get squished by god for the same sin? Is it different now? Has your god changed the punishment scale? I'm just trying to figure out why you feel you are justified in claiming that "lying to appear pious" is a sin requiring (instant) death - but only in certain circumstances, apparently.

[Ando]

35. ok

I brought up the other stories because they are examples of the same thing. Sometimes God chooses to put an exclamation point on a certain point of morality, Sodom & Gomorrah being the prime example. If you read the link in my previous post you'll find that he talks about this issue. He cites a comparison to a surgeon, God approaches sin like a surgeon approaches cancer. Sometimes emergency surgery is warranted, sometimes things can wait. As for why it happens when it does, it is usually to correct a course early on rather than letting immorality fester. I don't presume to fully understand God's timing. The link sums up my beliefs concerning the Ananias & Sapphira story nicely though.

[trotsky]

36. Ugh.

Two insignificant figures in early Christianity are killed on the spot for a lie about finances. In the grand scheme of things, it meant a few less shekels in the church coffers. Big whoop.

The most powerful man on the planet can lie with impugnity about his faith and continues to be rewarded. Untold millions suffer because of it. To me, the cancer on humanity that is George W. Bush, is bordering on inoperable. If he doesn't qualify for emergency surgery, what does?

Your god has an awfully strange way of determining whose lying should be emphasized and punished with death.

[Ando]

37. in the beginning...

I believe the importance of the Ananias & Sapphira episode is that it was early on in the growth of the church. A precedent needed to be set. And once again, it had absolutely nothing to do with money or the church coffers, it was about false piety and lying to God.

As for Mr. Bush, you'll never get me to defend him! God must have something in mind, I'll leave that to him.

[trotsky]

38. "A precedent needed to be set"

And then never followed up.

Some precedent.

[Ando]

39. all in the perspective

I think the point is that the line has been drawn. We now have to choose which side to stand on and face judgement for our decisions. But we can't say that we didn't know, Ananias & Sapphira ended that excuse. You better believe that precedent will be followed up, but perhaps not in this life. I realize that does nothing for you as an atheist, but it makes perfect sense within the framework of Christianity.

[trotsky]

40. So in essence,

it's perfectly OK from your perspective that two people were singled out for a particular sin and killed on the spot just to make an example, which later people are then free to ignore or not.

[Ando]

41. we're still not there

They are free to ignore it, yet they will still have to answer for their actions. Your argument only makes sense if you view Hell as a lesser judgement than death.

[trotsky]

42. If hell exists, that is.

See my other thread in this forum asking if Christians believe in hell. You might be surprised at how many don't. But I would guess according to you, they're just reading their own theology into the bible and therefore wrong, eh?

[Ando]

43. correct

Yes.

[trotsky]

44. And this ties so neatly into our discussion on the other thread.

You insist that those Christians who do not believe in hell are wrong, that they have misinterpreted the bible. Of course you realize that they will think you are wrong, for the very same reason.

THIS is how schisms arise. Are you really so arrogant to assume that only your reading is correct? Is the Church of Ando the only true Church? Or are you willing to allow for the possibility that YOU are the one who is wrong?

[Ando]

45. we're close!

The Church of Christ is the only true church, I do my best to fit into that mold. This is not arrogance, this is confidence. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, but I haven't seen good enough evidence yet. How am I so different than you? I've seen plenty of atheists on this board assert that theists are wrong and that they are correct. Is that arrogance? I don't think so, they just haven't seen enough evidence to change their mind. How exactly am I the arrogant one around here?

[trotsky]

46. I'll let others judge.

Whether you are arrogant or confident in your apparently supreme ability to divine the "true" meaning of the bible is up to your fellow Christians to determine.

[spryker]

28. christianity and marxism

What counts is practice. Religious fundamentalism leads to unacceptable actions, such as bans on abortion, homosexuality, pork,
alcohol etc.. Marxism has resulted in dictatorship, murder and
human rights violations. So has christianity and islam, in the past and the present. Only practice, actions, are important.