Is the new testament a socialist framework?

property is theft

Everything belongs to God. If you don't impart to your fellow man when they are in need you are stealing from Him.

Both the Old and New Testaments contain the seeds for what we now know as the monastic framework, which is the closest that man has ever gotten to true socialism. The Bible is not a book intended to save societies, since a society has no soul. While a particular authority might draw inspiration from biblical examples, these ought chiefly to be applied to his own individual character and only secondly in creating contemplative policies to encourage virtue in the wider society. The best way to lead others to virtue will always be by exemplifying it yourself.

Attached: hesychast.jpg (867x600, 86K)

Mathew 22:17-22
>Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
>But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
>Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
>And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
>They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
>When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
Taxation isn't theft.

Gimme your gf
>inb4 women are not property
lol

Evangelicalism has damaged the image of Christianity too. People seem to only remember the atrocities committed in God's name and not the words of the Gospels.

I believe a lot of self-proclaimed atheists would accept God if they had material proof that he existed. The reason I say this is because there are some atheists who live closer to Christ's example than some "Christians" do.

More like capitalists btfo

Asceticism isn’t the same thing as socialism. Socialism is generally anti-ascetic.

Socialism is a New Testament framework, one of many.

If a person gains and or enforces personal ownership of a thing (for example small lake), which multiple people or even a sizeable portion of society could use (drink, use for fishing, or sail/navigate trou), this thing is stolen from society as a whole.If it can only be used by one person or a small group (a house,tothbrusch,car,rifle), you don´t aktually deny it from the public so it is is not theft. If it is owned by said person but is openly acceseble to the public one could argue that it actually public property.
>gf
If you have a gf, your acces, which whould be personal if assuming a monogamous relationship, whould not be based on ownership, but on on relationship (which whould include a mutual agreement to access one anouther but in an exclusive manner). If we whould be speaking about a slave of some kind, your attack whould apply.
>giving a fuck abour your sex slave

The only good answer
Wondering about Christ's economic ideas seems to miss the point completely

It is socialist but not Marxist.

We’ve abstracted it all into taxes and social services.

No. And why this is on Yea Forums is beyond me. As a historian and amateur theologian, seeing people fail to use historical context of these verses annoys me.

Give me your bank card info

I think you mean: As a weeb, newfag and amateur subhuman*

Acts 4:31-35 King James Version (KJV)
31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

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.

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34 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,

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

Attached: 220px-Jesus_Revolution.svg.png (220x236, 7K)

That verse is about earthly possessions and how these things don’t matter in the eyes of the lord. It’s a very common theme and has nothing to do with socioeconomics.
Are you fucking retarded?

>giving up worldly possessions to support Christ's ministry on earth and grow closer to the Lord
>the same as giving up worldly possessions to support a commie government
No.

Attached: joan5.jpg (2560x1080, 220K)

>it literally uses the words Marx evidently stole to write the manifesto

Are you retarded?

Attached: f164be53ed5e64a8ad422fecde8d8640.jpg (590x640, 32K)

>property is theft
"(Your) property is theft, mine is OK"

>dumb fat german misinterprets the bible while covered in disgusting boils.
Ok?

thought you were talking about martin luther haha

kek

based haha poster

he didn't misinterpret anything. He just stole it outright.

Attached: 1439240592_preview_apu apustaja.png (657x527, 63K)

nytimes.com/2017/11/04/opinion/sunday/christianity-communism.html

No.
The ideal society on the Christian standpoint is described by Paul and where It's not exactly capitalist as we mean today, It's also certainly different from socialism in everything; despite de fact that Lenin, dishonestly, used 2Thessalonians 3.10 to argue communism.

>Any other conclusion means you need to keep studying.
You need to keep studying, because You misunderstood the whole thing.

technically, as a socialist myself, that could be interpreted both as being against tax and as being against the means of production being owned by a ruling class, so I'd say it's libertarian + "honour rules" if anything

jesus never said "thou shalt not have slaves". stop trying to retcon the bible you red scum.

>bourgeoisie stealing proletariat's surplus value

Redistribution is theft.

lol based

There are, no doubt, reasons for considering certain economic systems just, and others unjust, but it has turned out to be difficult to use the concept of redistribution to mark out differences between them. Redistribution in any of the three diachronic senses, and in either of the unmoralized synchronic senses appears to lack basic moral significance. Redistribution as tax and transfer or as rights infringement may indeed have basic moral significance. The classification of policies and institutional arrangements as redistributive in either of these senses, however, has been shown to depend on our moral assessment of these practices, and cannot thus be used as a basis for such assessments.

But couching discussions of distributive justice in terms implied by redistribution smuggles in associations of forceful takings and rights infringements, which are not obviously appropriate in the context of evaluating social programs funded through taxation, or to discussions of reforms of the global economy. Moreover, focusing on the permissibility of ‘helping’ and ‘aiding’ poorer people through ‘redistributive’ transfers seems tacitly to accept the existing distribution of holdings as a morally unproblematic benchmark. This focus will tend to privilege the status quo, and foster resistance to more egalitarian social arrangements.

It's only strange if you're an idiot.

That's why communism is supposed to work with a federation of communes.
Huterrites colonies have good relationships with one another.

All taxes are redistributionary.
Wanna build a road? You have to pay construction workers and for the materials, which you will buy from someone.
Wanna have laws that are enforced by police and courts? You have to pay the cops and judges.

No. Socialism, both as a means to Communism, per Marx, and in and of itself, per Western pansies, entails:

1. Redistribution of wealth as a mere "Newtonian" process, a positive accumulation relieving itself into a negative receptacle.
2. It being imperative merely because the latter exists.
3. Extreme contempt for the poor, conviction that making them rich is the only way of saving them from utter depravity and imminent extinction.

And many more anti-Christian ideas.

It is a monarchist framework you fucking mongoloids.

lol and what would the dynasty be? if you say the pope you're confirmed retarded

Attached: 60162108_2268829523160042_9058378488767053824_n.jpg (768x960, 106K)

Jesus was able to feed people, so he must've not been a socialist

That's because socialism is just communal responsibility on the scale of a whole nation or larger.

Can a National Sales Tax Replace Income Taxes?

I'd say it's more of a libertarian socialist handbook where the individuals are free to do as they please but are encouraged by God to share and redistribute with other people in your community, voluntarily, of course

Taxation is theft