A Christian Alternative to the Marxist Revolution :^)

The selected reading shows how Christianity started out crossing class boundaries (as it does today), and suggests a better alternative to all-out revolution (as exemplified in modern aid programs funded with government and tithe money, and more so in the early church).

– pp.102-105 of Ivor J. Davidson’s “The Birth of the Church: from Jesus to Constantine, A.D. 30-312” (Baker Books, 2004).

[ Btw, Barnabas is a fascinating person to study. Besides his generosity and excellent work ethic noted above, he stood up for Paul when the apostles were too afraid of him, he is the cousin of John Mark, who wrote the gospel of Mark and over whom Barnabas and Paul had a temporary disagreement; he was mistaken for Zeus in Lystra, is a possible author of the New Testament book of Hebrews, and he was a big-time missionary – approved by the apostles to go to the gentiles with Paul. There’s more, but this is an aside. ]

An economically-relevant fact that is absolutely fascinating about the early church: because they were one in heart and soul, they shared common property:
Acts 2:41-45 – “So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.”

Acts 4:32-37 – “And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. 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. Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement), and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.”

It would be nice if everyone of wealth converted and gave their excess to fund the treatment and prevention of things like poverty, unemployment, hunger, disease, pollution, abuse, addiction, etcetera.

It would also be nice if certain (not all) people who are not filthy rich but do have all their physical needs met, would stop spreading the infection of greed by whining about revolution, and start helping out those who are truly in need. For me the motivation for that did not come until God saved me.

Contact your lawmakers on important issues:
vocusgr.vocus.com/GRSPACE2/WebPu … ction=Home

Donate or volunteer:
networkforgood.org/volunteer

The failed Marxist revolution was a disaster and has ruined Russia. Instead of the Menshevik’s taking over to adopt the long-term evolutionary process that would have eventually made a socialist democracy work, it was Lenin and the Bolsheviks who simply claimed power in a sudden coup when the country was in a state of anarchy. Parallels can be made with the way in which the attempt to impose democracy so soon in Iraq has failed miserably. Since Russia was already poor, the ‘equality’ communism offered reduced everyone to poverty. And Russia’s tyrant Nicholas II was eventually replaced with one much worse in Stalin, who made Russia a superpower through instilling fear in the people to gain support and loyalty, and setting unrealistic targets for hard labourers to gain productivity.

The values of the French Revolution: liberty, egality and fraternity have promoted socialist values to some extent and made us civilised countries, but capitalists still run us, they still exploit people as means to an end like they always have; imposing values on us and brainwashing people into being materialistic so that their unfair system that benefits the priveliged few is maintained. The majority of ordinary people do most of the hard work for money that will hardly feed them, and then they can’t even afford to enjoy the spoils of their own labour, whilst those who order them about have everything for doing nothing is. That’s worse than being a slave, it’s basically legal prostitution.

And the Church has got alot to answer for having worked hand in hand with capitalism for centuries; telling people that if they are good, that if they just stop complaining about their pains and submit to their miserable labours then the fact that they are poor and starving won’t matter because they will get into heaven. Sure many of the teachings in the bible are beautiful, but many others in there are violent and vile and so it contradicts itself. Tresell’s book ‘The ragged trousered philanphropists’ sums everything up, and one part in it sets out how a socialist society can work and how easy a solution there is to getting rid of injustices and poverty. I think the only problem is that there’s too many selfish people out there, humanity isn’t really ready for a state of true equality, again it would have to be a long evolutionary process.

Most religions have a strong communitarian bent, so it is unsurprising that Christianity can be rendered thusly. Indeed, Liberation Theology in South America tried to use Christianity to back socialist systems. Other clear examples of Christianity’s pro-communitarian leanings can be found in the extensive Christian charity network. While Christians (and the religious in general) have always been culturally conservative, they have almost always been economically liberal. It is a little different in America due to Calvinist influences, but the exception oughtn’t be confused with the rule.

And with respect to Russia, I actually think Russia is a pretty solid example of Communism working. Pre-Communist Russia was a country that could be defeated by the freaking Ottomans, the sick man of Europe. Heck, while China was busy being divided by the European powers, its opium-addled military managed to defeat Russia. And both of these happened after capitalist reforms had been put in place!

Russia rose from that to become a world superpower. That is no small feat! Sure, they lost in the end, but holy cow what a ride! And, I mean, look at Russia right now. Sure, it isn’t sunshine lollipops and rainbows, but it is a hell of a lot better than it was pre-revolution.

Maybe it would have been better had the Mensheviks taken over, maybe it would have been better had it been Trotsky and not Stalin . . . but that doesn’t undermine what the Communists did achieve.

James

I haven’t heard of a more free and fruitful country than the U.S., which is mostly capitalist. Most of the socialist/communist governments are still in that in-between stage Marx spoke of, but never mentioned how looooong it was supposed to last. Certainly no one has reached the “fifth epoch” (not that the whole “epoch” thing was accurate). When did the church say the text above that is in bold? Who specifically said it? This is nonsense. Paul said some stuff about not making waves, but not to the detriment of the wave-makers. There is beauty and vile violence together in the Bible not because it contradicts itself, but because it does not airbrush reality. It does not condone the violence unless it is associated with justice.

I wasn’t prepared to get into a discussion like this. I don’t know as much about the history you both are discussing, though I’ve read about it before. And I know it is important in economics. So, I apologize that I cannot go into it at that level. Maybe some day I’ll be all caught up.

I think that sometimes it is necessary to overthrow people of authority who exploit and abuse those below them (like Saddam Hussein).

However, where I am hearing talk of Marxist revolution, people are living comfortably, or could live comfortably if they made the effort. So what if some people have a lot and work a little, while others have a little and work a lot – as long as the little they have meets their needs (including time with their family), what’s the problem? They want more than they need. That’s the problem.

If their needs are not getting met, go through the proper channels to get the wheels of change roling (see above post, the link to lawmakers). Most people who I hear talk about revolution just talk and do nothing else but talk.

What I’m saying essentially is – it doesn’t matter what economy a body of believing Christians congregates in… they can still give their excess to end social ills – without revolution. The more who see this in action, the more who will want to become a part of it.

It may be that people are too selfish, or it may be that they just need to see it in action and hadn’t really given it much thought.

I personally believe it would take a revival to spark that fire.

Support Rahab Ministries:

rahabministriesthailand.org/welcome.htm

You can become a sponsor:

rahabministriesthailand.org/sponsor2.htm

Or you can buy their hand-made products:

rahabministriesthailand.org/bazaar.htm

Hi Ichthus,

That seems to be clear … a long quote and then a “shiny happy people” statement: “wouldn’t it be nice if the world was completely different …”

Shalom

I was prepared for a different sort of approach than the replies take.

There has been much progress, and there is much room for improvement.

Shalom to you, too.

christianity is definitely not an answer to marxism, simply because it has too many patriarchal elements that undermine the position of women( and they’re more than 50% of people :laughing: )

There doesn’t need to be an answer to Marxism… that was not the intention of this thread. Christianity and women… I haven’t actually explored that topic very much.

But, one might consider the judge Deborah. The prophetesses (don’t know all their names). The Samaritan woman at the well Jesus broke custom in order to talk to. That there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus. And so on.

I don’t really want to discuss that topic in this thread; it is not really a priority or a concern right now.

Thanks for replying, though.

The last will be first… the first, last.

I assume by your comment that you think of yourself as one of the first.

A star near us explodes, and all your opinions explode with it. God says you’re wrong, buddy. Eternal love wins, delusion of power loses.

You have an artificially intelligent teddy bear? 'Cause that’s the only way it would’ve survived the explosion.

This is a very artificially intelligent discussion.

I wasn’t meaning that ‘artifically intelligent’ comment as an insult, but as a joke.

“Take it easy” – Nacho Libre.

This is like comparing an antidote to a poison, though this is something only Marxists can understand. With Marx, Engels, and Feuerbach we get a crystal clear comprehension of the fetish of Christianity. Theists cannot understand this.

Max Eastman says of Hegelian dialectics what could just as easily be said about Christianity:

“Hegelism is like a mental disease – you cannot know what it is until you get it, and then you can’t know because you have got it.”

There is absolutely no compatibility between Christianity and Marxism. The former became a popular fetish because the latter failed. You cannot mix poison with the antidote.

angelfire.com/or/sociologyshop/marxrel.html

I wasn’t trying to say Marxism and Christianity are compatible. Note the word “alternative”.

I’m not sure which one you think is the poison… but I know I am sure Christ is the antidote… not to Marxism (there are some good intentions there, but it does miss the mark) – but to everything that is in the way of Love. Not ‘emasculated’ love… real love… love that stirs things up… love that builds up… and I better stop before I get on a roll…

I have been thinking about the dialectic off and on for … a couple years (before I knew what I was thinking about, for a while)… and it seems there is a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (supposedly Hegel never used these words? but oh well) going on in God’s communicating of His Message. See what you think…

  1. A loving, perfect God wants us to be in union with Him.
  2. Sin (free corruption of love) alienates us from a perfect, loving God.

So the situation looks pretty hopeless, until…

  1. God shows us what love really means and atones perfectly, lovingly, for our sin and brings us to unity with Him (OT sacrifices, NT sacrifice).

Of course, we are free to reject that synthesis. But that would be a tragic end, wouldn’t it? …if we never got the Message…

I’m not saying I agree with Hegel (or Marx) on everything… but that dialectic thing doesn’t seem totally wrong.