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.
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.
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.
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.
Good job! ... He is not .... I am just responding to flurry of posts here and on Facebook that have gone to say that any redistribution is socialism ... one went as far as saying any governement intervention, including taxation, is socialism and fascism ...
The religous right has confused their values with the bible's.
Since the label is being flippantly used .... and I thought I'd have some fun shaking their belief system that Jesus was dyed in the wool American capitalist.
The idea of stewardship and even community escapes the American psyche, at times .... He owns it all ... the gold, the silver, the cattle of a thousand hills.
1st...i understand what the early 1st century believers did & why they did them. I personally dont see where we are suppose to be the 1st century believers...we are suppose to be believers today...and that is different. the "society" and "church society" of the 1st century could be found in 1 major city in the U.S. today. They dealt in 10's/100's/1000's...we deal in 100,000's, millions, billions. big difference.
2nd...if all the law & the prophets hang on those 2...then i'll focus on keeping & fulfilling the 2. whenever men start "defining" what Christ said...we usually get a mess(religion/cults/etc..). Yes I do believe that I can say "Love God with everything you are and love your neighbor as your own flesh"...without defining for people what to do & what not to do. Why stop at the 10 laws? Why not include the entire 613 laws?
3rd...i do not have the insight to define for anyone what it means for them to love God with all they are...that is for them & Him. I believe if we allow ourselves to be led by the Holy Spirit...He will make sure we have plenty of oppurtunity to demonstrate.
If I give Him ALL....then I don't have anything left to give to religious foundations/organizations (that will probably take a fee).
BTW, I'm more of a capitalist than all of you combined.
Capitalism as it is practiced today reduces the masses to being "wage slaves" and enthrones monopolistic conglomerates that control markets and squelches competition. Too much "capitalism" as practiced today will lead to very few capitalists because wealth and the power of production will be agregated into the hands of a select few.
The answer is Distributism. Break up corporations, bring back laws that our Founders put in place to control and limit corporate power. Empower the family business owner who is being driven into being a wage slave by massive corporations he can't compete with.
A man is only free if he has both the ability and means to sustain himself.
Capitalism as it is practiced today reduces the masses to being "wage slaves" and enthrones monopolistic conglomerates that control markets and squelches competition. Too much "capitalism" as practiced today will lead to very few capitalists because wealth and the power of production will be agregated into the hands of a select few.
The answer is Distributism. Break up corporations, bring back laws that our Founders put in place to control and limit corporate power. Empower the family business owner who is being driven into being a wage slave by massive corporations he can't compete with.
A man is only free if he has both the ability and means to sustain himself.
God is clearly a Distributist.
Yep. And economies are far more alive when everyone prospers some rather than a few prospering in extremis.
My experience as a wage slave is that I always seem to have enough to barely scrape by, but never enough to actually get ahead. And that is exactly how the corporate moguls want it.
SOmebody has to run the machines and do the paperwork. And best not to let them somebodies have it too good...
Wow... I just sounded like a socialist....
__________________
Last edited by John Atkinson; 03-24-2010 at 08:40 AM.
While it might be difficult today to have all things common among the Church globally, their example of sharing resources among fellow saints so that there are none of "them that lacked" could still be done today among all the saints within each local city or town.
It is disturbing to realize there are struggling saints, home mission preachers trying to start new churches driving very old cars, ect. while there are probally other saints wearing $300 watches, $500 suits, owning 2nd vacation homes, ect., I wonder what the early Church would think of the great disparity between affluent saints and "them that lack" in today's Church ?
Sure it might not be easy at first to start such a paradigm shift in people's thinking, but I have to believe that if enough people were willing to share their riches that God would make a way for the modern Church to emulate the early Church to reach the point where "Neither was there any among them 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.
__________________
Acts 2:38 is a must, not simply an option !
While it might be difficult today to have all things common among the Church globally, their example of sharing resources among fellow saints so that there are none of "them that lacked" could still be done today among all the saints within each local city or town.
It is disturbing to realize there are struggling saints, home mission preachers trying to start new churches driving very old cars, ect. while there are probally other saints wearing $300 watches, $500 suits, owning 2nd vacation homes, ect., I wonder what the early Church would think of the great disparity between affluent saints and "them that lack" in today's Church ?
Sure it might not be easy at first to start such a paradigm shift in people's thinking, but I have to believe that if enough people were willing to share their riches that God would make a way for the modern Church to emulate the early Church to reach the point where "Neither was there any among them 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.
It's difficult, because the saints can receive and live a relatively "luxurious lifestyle" compared to the referenced needy of the early church, simply through government programs already in place. (and no I am not saying it's desirable or easy)
It's hard to to see these kinds of posts when I know we "gave" nearly half our income already to the government/church last year.
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
Yep. And economies are far more alive when everyone prospers some rather than a few prospering in extremis.
My experience as a wage slave is that I always seem to have enough to barely scrape by, but never enough to actually get ahead. And that is exactly how the corporate moguls want it.
SOmebody has to run the machines and do the paperwork. And best not to let them somebodies have it too good...
Wow... I just sounded like a socialist....
No. You sounded like a Distributist. Government's role should be to protect life, liberty, and property. How can government be said to protect liberty if we are slaves to corporate America with it's unchecked power and enfluence? Consider these laws that our Founding Fathers and the states supported...
* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
Think about this... our founders and early Americans understood that we have two enemies. Socialists who would give the state total power over wealth distribution and the means of production and total Capitalism wherein corporate powers and banks control wealth and the means of production. Distributists understand these threats to human liberty.
Re: When God became a Socialist ....
Linear Mode
