Christianity and Communism

[Mike Bogue]

One of the thoughts that I have been considering on my considerable ride home from work recently is the relationship between Christianity and communism. To be clear I am talking about the idealized communism that Marx envisoned and not the militaristic versions that have been seen in reality (USSR, China, Cambodia...) and the reason that I choose Christianity is that I do not feel that I know enough about other faiths to speak for them.
The basic tenant of Christianity is to
-Feed the hungry
-Clothe the naked
-Care for the poor
In other words we need to take care of each other, because we are all God's creatures and that means that none of us is more important than any other. This would seem to coincide very well with the ideals of Marxism where is was stated
"To each according to his need, from each according to his ability"

I have heard this paticular line referenced several times on conservative talk radio in reference to liberals and government run social programs. I do not have a problem with that reference as these social programs do tend to follow a "Marxist" ideal, but isn't it also true that they are following a Christian ideal. The talk radio host talks about how he is very Christian, but at the same time decries social programs as communist and therefore very bad which seems unchristian in my opinion.

[Ingrid]

Where in the world is that written ? I am Catholic and I have never, ever been told that.

[Bryan Rosander, FL]

@The Observer - I'm confused by your point. Are you claiming that the Bible's writers padded the truth in order to make it more palatable to authorities? And then you say that because God didn't strike them down when they lied, that Christianity is inconsistent?

[The Observer]

No, I'm making the inference that, in order to gain more followers, seeing as christianity was, at the time, a new religion, the writers of the bible padded the truth.

[Bryan Rosander, FL]

If they had padded the truth, modern Christians wouldn't stand for it. Jesus' call for slaves to obey their masters was consistent with the rest of his message. In particular, this was consistent with the command to obey and submit to authority whether it be Kings, local governors, parents, husbands, or slave masters.

God's command to rulers was not any easier. They were to serve their people. That said, their responsibility was not void if the other side violated their part. A ruler still had to serve his people even if they did not submit to his authority. The people still had to submit to the ruler's authority even if he did not serve them.

The one exception to this attitude of submission is that Christian's must obey God's authority over man's when they conflict. Christian's cannot murder, steal, aid corruption, or fail to spread the gospel. But, rather than rebelling, they will simply go to prison and continue to witness there.

There are plenty of modern examples of this being lived out today, like Christians submitting to oppressive rulers. Christians frequently travel to oppressive countries and risk their lives to spread the gospel, especially if it is their home country. They willingly go to prison for their testimony, are treated like slaves, and continue to preach the Gospel there. This is why Communists and other oppressive governments find Christianity so hard to stamp out.

[Ingrid]

Do you mean Christians today or the Gospel writers contemporaries would not have stood for it? Maybe both?

Christians in China are suffering in this way as we speak and still the Gospel is spreading.

Historically, Christians have changed the world profoundly, without resorting to armed conflict. The witness of the early martyrs and their patient, brave submission to authority, while suffering unto death for their beliefs changed the Western world. The message they died for wasn't padded to make it more palatable. It certainly didn't make life any easier to be a follower. If I was going to pad the truth to sell my religion I wouldn't end up with anything like the NewTestament.

[Bryan Rosander, FL]

Definitely both.

Most of the original disciples and apostles followed this teaching very clearly. Paul spent much of his time in prison and was content whatever his circumstances. Out of the original disciples, I think only John the apostle died of old age.

I would not be surprised if some people would believe a padded gospel, but not my Christian friends.

[Kenny]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Catholicism is just plain silly

[Bryan Rosander, FL]

I am a Reformed Baptist, so I have no allegiance to the pope. I don't see how that affects Ingrid's arguments though, unless you are just trying to discredit Catholicism as part of Christianity in general.

His arguments so far have matched my own beliefs very nicely.

[Ingrid]

Thanks Bryan,

I am sure you understand the point I am going to make doesn't reflect on any issue I have with your statement. I just want to clarify something about Catholicism and the Papacy.

Catholics first allegiance is to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We look to the Pope as the apostolic successor to Peter to help lead and teach the Church. We respect and love the Pope for his service to the Church. I think there are so many misconceptions about this relationship. Possibly some of the confusion is caused by misrepresentations of Papal infallibility.


Kenny is either out of his element or just tired of the issue because "just plain silly" isn't very elucidating. I suppose he does think my Catholicism discredits my point of view.

Yikes... I am a she not a he... I just like that picture of Paul because he looks kinda grouchy. I see how that is confusing.

[Bryan Rosander, FL]

@Ingrid - He, not she. Sorry, I noticed it earlier, but I forgot.

I still have a lot of misconceptions about the Catholic Church. I've gotten some of them cleaned up, but it doesn't help that like anything, not everyone says the same thing. Your description of the relationship sounds like a good start.

Since this is a discussion of Communism and all of Christianity, I don't see what specifics about Catholicism or Papal Infallibility have to do with it.

[Ingrid]

The Pope stuff is off topic but I got pulled in by trying to dispel this nonsense:

You, Ingrid, have only revealed some information, not all. Communism isn't as different from Christianity as you think. Jesus may have never told his followers to force others to give of themselves, but, in the past, the Pope has and it is written that if the Pope were to say something untrue, God would strike him down on the spot.

I get the impression from your posts that you are very knowledgeable about your denominations theology and are probably more knowledgeable about Catholicism than many Catholics. Catholics, myself included, need to work harder to match the example of biblical literacy set by most serious Protestants. I was wrong to imply that you held misconceptions, and you are right to point out the poor job we have done lately in teaching and conveying what it means to be Catholic.

I think Danman and Kenny do feel my faith does disqualify me from adding anything useful to the conversion at hand.

[Ingrid]

Please add @ Bryan to the above post.