When God became a Socialist ....

[DAII]

There is a lot to be said of the holistic, communal living of the Acts church that caught the attention of the multitudes as compared to the rugged individualism of the Western modern age and about NT giving but which part of the Second Tithe did you perceive as non-compulsory?

"Every third year you must offer"

Originally Posted by BroGary

The socialism of the world is a forced sharing, the Biblical sharing of resources in the "Church" is not forced, but is done willingly and gladly, the early Church willingly and gladly went far beyond what tithing would have required anyhow.

(of course with the economy the way it is today most of us might be in the catagory of those that lacked

Acts 2:44,45
And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 4:32
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

Acts 4:34,35
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

2 Corinthians 9:6-8
But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.
Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:

God does acknowledge that some will endure poverty though:

Revelation 2:9
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

10 percent every third year...

Come on Daniel that isn't even close to what we have here.

And who enforced this? Did he add thousands of priests just to collect it and distribute it?

Yes, he did .. they were called Levites ... they did the collecting and distributing at the storehouse ... under King David ... there were about 38,000of them ... and they helped him collect the royal taxes too as judges and officers.

[BroGary]

Interesting discussion DAII !

I will have to do a more throuough study of the examples of how they gave in the NT when I have time to try to be more sure as to whether or not they held onto any of the OT practices in the area of giving.

I'm not sure what you mean specifically by the "second" tithe, but I have seen discussions elsewhere that give reason to think that tithing is not mandatory for the NT Church. I still willingly tithe even though I am no longer sure it is required, but my point was that the early NT Church went way far beyond what tithing would require anyhow.

This verse seems to indicate that NT giving is done willingly and not of a set percentage, even though you would expect people filled with the Holy Ghost to cheerfully give beyond what tithing would require like the early Church did.

"Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver."

[BroGary]

A side point to consider DAII -

You mentioned "communal living of the Acts church".

It doesn't seem like they all lived together in a commune setting if that is what you meant, there are many verses that indicate various people having church in their individual homes, so while they shared their resources it seems they still lived in their own individual homes.

It would make for an interesting study to get a more detailed idea of the daily living situations of the early Church from both scriptural and historical records.

[Twisp]

I understand where you are coming from DAII, but if it were the tithes that were being redistributed, doesn't that mean God was just giving away what was already His? He wasn't redistributing a portion of Israel's wealth, just the part of His that He required from them.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Twisp

I understand where you are coming from DAII, but if it were the tithes that were being redistributed, doesn't that mean God was just giving away what was already His? He wasn't redistributing a portion of Israel's wealth, just the part of His that He required from them.

The same argument you just gave could be applied to this nation. It could easily be said that the government isn't redistributing your wealth, but instead only the part of it's wealth that it requires from you. ,

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The same argument you just gave could be applied to this nation. It could easily be said that the government isn't redistributing your wealth, but instead only the part of it's wealth that it requires from you. ,

That could be applied in that way as well, yes. I don't feel that President Obama is a socialist, so I was just making an observation on the scripture.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Twisp

That could be applied in that way as well, yes. I don't feel that President Obama is a socialist, so I was just making an observation on the scripture.

I think he is the most socialist president we've had in forever. Maybe since FDR. However, I don't see a major problem with SOME socialist practices.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

10 percent every third year...

Come on Daniel that isn't even close to what we have here.

And who enforced this? Did he add thousands of priests just to collect it and distribute it?

The prophets enforced these regulations. The books of Amos, Micah, and Malachi all offer rebukes for those who neglected and “oppressed” the poor. Oppression of the poor was turning the poor away from their “right” at the gate. One must understand that the tithe was specifically for land owners and ranchers. The tithe didn’t apply to tradesmen. This “land tax” was a 10% production tax on produce and herds. Every third year’s tithe was to be gathered into the storehouse specifically for the Levites, strangers, widows, poor, and orphans. This was the tithe that was neglected in Malachi wherein God rebuked the priests and the people for robbing Him in tithes and offerings. They robbed God by robbing the poor of their rights under the law.

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Not even our founders were no tax proponents. Taxation is necessary to run a government, amazing that God only needed 3.34% rate to do it.

Not necessarily true. Besides the tithe the children of Israel also had a head tax upon all males over 20 years of age. This head tax primarily went to fund the military. In addition to the tithe and this head tax various kings often issued “burdens” upon the people for various building projects and wars. Kings who levied heavy burdens upon the people were generally hated. Kings who lightened the people’s burdens were greatly loved. So there is some theology behind the notion of supporting tax cuts. However, those cuts never effected the poor tithe that sustained the poor and needy among them.

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Not really. This is not a punishment tax that is so heavy it strips people of their wealth to give to others. This is a very small portion that is not set up to punish the earners. And remember the Priests did not have a means of support, so the other 11 tribes received their portion of the land which they received the profits from.

True. The tithe wasn’t an excessive or oppressive tax to support the priests and the needy. However, neglecting this tithe brought a curse upon the nation, for God promised to hear the cries of the poor and oppressed should they be neglected in the land.

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I may be wrong but the temple tax was reserved for males between certain ages and was like once every 20 years.

I never heard of that so I’ll have to look into it. Can you provide a text for this one?



I do have to speak up here. GOD IS NOT A SOCIALIST. The economic philosophy espoused by Scripture and most historical Christian thinkers is a third-way economic position known as Distributism. Distributism opposes the notion of socialism in that socialism is essentially where the state owns and manages the means of productive property (production). Socialism also supports the notion of redistribution of overall wealth between the population. However, Distributism is also not les affair capitalism. Distributism believes in distributing land and productive property to smaller private businesses, cooperatives, guilds, and craftsman unions. These smaller social bodies defend their right to own their own means of production and productive property. Distributism disfavors the notion of large aggregate wealth embodied in monopolistic corporations or corporate conglomerates. The primary social structure of Distributism is the family. The goal of Distributism is to decentralize production and the ownership of productive property and distribute it to the local level (families and cooperatives). Distributism would break up Wal-Mart and pass laws that support the local family grocery and family tailors, craftsman, technicians, electronics shops, etc. The general philosophy of Distributism is that too much Capitalism will lead to too few capitalists as wealth becomes aggregated into the hands of a very few individuals or corporations. Distributism is also strongly opposed to usury or the excessive charging of interest. Distributism would advocate breaking up the corporate banking systems of the United States and replacing them with localized credit unions. Distributist thought was also the primary philosophical foundation for anti-trust laws preventing monopoly in the America economy. In fact credit unions have their origins in Distributist thought. Land owners, workers, and tradesmen would form guilds to represent their industry’s interests and for cooperatives wherein the means of production can be shared within the fraternity. This would help those without their own means of production until they can acquire the necessary skill and wealth to attain their own productive property and means of production. Distributist theory is largely isolationist but does acknowledge “Just War” theory for national defense. Charity is seen as the duty of a private society and is opposed to all forms of socialistic means of providing charitable relief for the poor and needy. Private religious bodies and charitable coalitions are seen as the primary vehicles for charity and social assistance. Any assistance provided by law in party by public funding would be kept localized. For example Distributist thought MIGHT allow for a state level public health insurance system yet be opposed to a federal public health insurance system. Distributists see Democracy as the primary and preferred means of social change as opposed to revolution and strongly supports the notion of a Constitutional Republic.

Ancient Israel’s agrarian economy better reflects Distributism than Socialism or total Capitalism. GOD IS NOT A SOCIALIST.

[n david]

Apples and oranges ... God wasn't a Socialist and no scripture provides cover or gives backing to what BHO is doing.