Socialism
By bestboy19
@bestboy19 (5478)
United States
September 2, 2012 6:35am CST
I was listening to a television preacher this morning who said that many believe socialism is based on Biblical principles. He used this scripture as their argument, Acts 4:34-35 "For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, and lay them at the apostles feet; and they would be distributed to each as any had need." NAS
What do you think? Is socialism Biblical?
2 people like this
5 responses
@Pose123 (21635)
• Canada
2 Sep 12
Hi bestboy, It seems that the early church tried the idea of having all things in common but humans being humans, it caused problems. Some people claimed that they weren't getting their full share and others tried to hold back part of their possessions. It is also recorded in the gospel of Luke, Chapter 18, verse 22 that Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all that he had and distribute the proceeds among the poor. Pure Socialism cannot work with so much greed in the world but we do need a mixture of both socialism and capitalism to have a fair and just society. The important thing is that people always have the right to choose in free and fair elections. There must be no dictatorship. Blessings.
@owlwings (43915)
• Cambridge, England
2 Sep 12
I did have to chuckle at "There must be no dictatorship." 
(I expect you see why). Your intention is quite clear, nevertheless! 
(I expect you see why). Your intention is quite clear, nevertheless! @bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
3 Sep 12
Hello Pose, Thank you for responding. What about today's secular society. Do you think, in trying to convince others that socialism is a better system, will use quotes from the Bible to justify their views?
1 person likes this
@owlwings (43915)
• Cambridge, England
2 Sep 12
The early Christians and, later, many monastic orders practised wealth-sharing in their communities. This is not necessarily equivalent to 'socialism' as the word is commonly used today, however.
@owlwings (43915)
• Cambridge, England
3 Sep 12
ANY system which advocates wealth-sharing is secular (whether it is based on 'biblical' principles or not). "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's ..." and all that!
Religion may have something to say, of course, on the ethical merits or otherwise of certain secular practices (in particular, money - one is reminded of the quotation "The love of money is the root of all evil" and of Islamic Shariah law with regard to lending money on interest) but the practices themselves are mundane and secular, rather than spiritual.
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
3 Sep 12
It may be secular if you're giving to Caesar (government) and Caesar is dividing it up, but what was given in the scripture I quoted didn't belong to Caesar. It belonged to the individuals. Some see that as a Biblical example of socialism. I see it as charity.
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
3 Sep 12
I think this is the same as giving to your church. Note the proceeds were presented to the apostles, not to the state, not to the governing authorities. No, this is not socialism, this is tithing, this is charity, this is giving a man your coat. Nowhere are we told in the Bible to take the coat from someone else to give to the state so the state can give it to your neighbor. The idea of taking money from others to give to the state and then having the state perform acts of charity is simply trying to relieve oneself of the responsibility to act charitably on one's own. Plus, it feels better to take money from someone who has more than to sacrifice some of your own. This is selfishness, not charity. The Bible doesn't advocate socialism, it advocates personal responsibility from Genesis to Revelation.
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
3 Sep 12
What you say is correct, but there are still those who will argue that this is a Biblical example of socialism. It's for us to show them their mistake. For example, in the Old Testament, those who had fields to harvest were to leave the edges for the poor, but the poor had to gather the grain themselves. It wasn't done for them. And as the Apostle Paul said, "If a man doesn't work, nor should he eat." Charity yes, socialism no.
@camomile07 (1420)
• Germany
3 Sep 12
Socialism is a kind of politics which the human beings invented and it is already known that during the history the Bible has been used by different ways, also to get followers for something, which doesn't mean that God approves it. Some people tried to give their own version about understanding of the Bible to make people see that they are on the right way. But, in my opinion, those people do wrong.
Socialism has got some good points, but it's not the perfect system. It's good for those who really need help and their daily live assured. But it should not stop those who have the oportunity to do something with their live.
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
3 Sep 12
Thank you for responding. So you don't think the Bible necessarily promotes socialism?
@camomile07 (1420)
• Germany
5 Sep 12
I wouldn't call it socialism, but equality for everyone. We can live in a world where everyone can be healthy, happy, working and have everything a person needs. We need to be in a group, every person is a complement to the other persone, because each one has his/her own likes, possibilities, attitudes and interests. Every person gives what he/she can or knows to do and so we build a society, but most people also needs a leader and only a few persons are able to be one. Everything has to be based on knowledge, with love and honestly. The world could work well if everybody would wish to help to the next and if we eradicate the hate and egoism. It seems to be similar to socialism, but it's not the same, because you build up the world on the ability of each, everybody is equal, but everyone may have what he/she is working for.
@vidhyaprakash_2 (7116)
• India
3 Sep 12
Hi friend, The quote is quite good, but no one is interested in sharing their wealth with poor and needy persons. Most of the rich persons are interested in increasing their wealth and don't worry about the poor persons
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
3 Sep 12
That may be because they know the government will do it. A heart for others has been removed by the federal government.
