Talk:Christian communism

Christain socialism and christian communism

What is the diference between Christian socialism and Christian communism?--JK the unwise 15:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I saw this question the other day and I intended to reply but something got in the way. My quick answer is that Tony Blair calls himself a Christian socialist by belief. He has moved the old Labour Party away from many of its Marxist foundations. Tony Blair also describes himself as a devout man who acts out his religion. (I am making a comment, not a judgement.) In other words he says that he is living his religion. Now on the other hand if you look at some of the old guard of the Labour Party you will find quite a number who were very sympathetic to the ideals of communism as it was attempted in the old USSR, but of course the constitutional basis for the USSR was atheism and this of course created a conflict with Christian believers who were also communists. Going back in time to the Mayflower Compact of the 1600s, that document is quite communistic and obviously rooted in Christianity. The same was true of Winstanley and his True Levellers of the Cromwell era. They gained the name of "Digger" because they took over and dug up public lands and wanted to "level mens' estates" so that everyone shared property equally. Billy Bragg the singer flirted heavily in USA interviews with George Gimarc over the concept of Christian communism. Unfortunately the enemies of John Lilburne and the Army faction who wanted equal or freeborn laws were smeared as "Levellers" when they claimed to want no such thing. The Parliamentary papers of the 1600s referred to Lilburne and the Army faction as "Agitators" who were seeking legal reforms, not the abolition of private property. Blair says that he has Christian compassion, but that does not mean that he wants to abolish private property. MPLX/MH 00:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, more simply put, Christian socialism is a form of Socialism while Christian communism is a form of Communism. Read the respective articles on Socialism and Communism to find out the differences. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This page is so full of POV statements, it is not even funny!

As it currently stands, this page if nothing but the POV of Leftists. I will agree, Leftists may believe that Christians are Communists, but most Christians will ademantly deny that. This page has been written completely in the POV of socialist-leaning individuals and really needs to be made NPOV. This will not be an easy task, but it is necessary. In short, a Christian cannot speak as for a Communist, nor can a Communist speak for a Christian. This page is almost entirely a Communist speaking for a Christian.

Also, it appears that Mihnea Tudoreanu has correctly decided to move the Christian communism section of that was previously included in the Religious communism article into the this article, which I believe was the right thing to do. Mihnea has also respectuflly placed the link to this article with a brief statement regarding the controversy surrounding the idea of Christian communism.

Discussion of Removed Material

But Mihnea has improperly and conveniently failed to add most of the Christian communism section that was removed from the Religious communism article to the Christian communism article. It appears that Mihnea has filled the this article with POV material instead of using the cited material that was originally removed from Religious communism article. This deleted material will now be added into this article as was expected when it was originally removed from the Religious communism article. (Gaytan 19:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC))

I do not believe anyone is making the assertion that all Christians are communists; such a claim would be plainly false. Rather, the article merely states that some Christians are communists (and vice versa), which is plainly true. Objections can be raised regarding the exact meanings of "Christian" and "communist", of course. Both Christianity and communism are divided into separate factions that often accuse each other of not being true Christians or true communists. But it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the inner divisions of Christianity and communism - we have other articles for that purpose.

The problem with the removed material you are talking about, Gaytan, is that is criticizes the notion of Christian communism by pointing out differences between Christianity and Marxism. But, as the opening paragraph of the article states, Christian communists are not Marxists. Communism, as such, can refer to any egalitarian commune - voluntary or involuntary - whose members put all their property in common. The article also states that some people wish to reserve the word "communism" for Marxist-inspired societies, in which case they would refer to Christian communism as "Christian communalism" or something similar instead. Finally, I'd like to point out that Marx and Engels are by no means "Communist founders". They founded Marxism, but the word - and the idea of - communism was being used long before them. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

In order to clearly show that not all Christians believe they are taught to be communists, I changed the first paragraph of the article in order to highlight the fact that only some Christians believe Jesus' doctrines espoused communism. Gaytan 22:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That was unnecessary. The first paragraph already says "[christian communism] is a theological and political theory based upon the view that the teachings of Jesus Christ compel Christians to support communism as the ideal social system." View, not fact. The idea that Christian teachings support communism is always presented as a view, not as any kind of established fact. Who holds this view? Well, obviously, Christian communists. But also a number of atheist capitalists who believe that Christianity is inherently communistic and therefore "evil". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. The word "view" is OK. But about Atheist capitalists believing Christianity is evil... I think it is clear that the major movement against Christianity and religion in general today is from inherently atheistic socialists of today. When we scrutinize those groups who are breaking crosses off of war memorials, taking God out of America's Pledge of Allegiance, redefining marriage to encompass same-sex couples, aborting innocent humans in the womb while fighting to reduce the punishments given to murderers and child molesters, teaching primary age children about sex while conveniently ignoring morality, virtue, and God in general, ruling that laws against sodomy are unconstitutional, and many other issues, I think it is abundantly clear that those pushing these efforts are none other than socialists and communists (who are overwhelmingly atheist). Capitalists are very likely mixed on the issue of religion. Majority of communists are not. Gaytan 21:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you know that America's Pledge of Allegiance was originally written by a socialist? (who was also a Baptist minister, by the way) Do not confuse socialism with liberalism. Due to the lack of any strong socialist movement in America, there are virtually no socialists in your country to speak for themselves, and so most of the talk about "socialism" comes from non-socialists who either don't know what they're talking about or intentionally try to bend the truth. The same applies to communism, which is a particularly radical branch of socialism. All the attacks on religious institutions that you mention come from liberals, who are among the traditional enemies of socialism. Classical liberalism was the ideology that came up with the idea of free market capitalism in the first place, and "liberalism" is understood as a pro-capitalist ideology everywhere in the world except for the United States (you can thank FDR for the confusion around liberalism in America). Neoliberalism is the name of the ideology pushing for free trade and globalization, which is what most socialists around the world are currently fighting against. As for atheist capitalists believing Christianity is evil, see here, here, here and here. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It is irrelevant that the writer of the American Pledge was a Socialist. The pledge he wrote was something that was very positive for the U.S. So, great! Fine with me. That doesn’t make socialism great, it simply admits that some socialists do good things. I am not arguing against that. Now about the definition of liberalism. You argue these two points: that there is basically no "socialist movement in America" and that American don't even understand what liberalism means due to FDR's mistakes. But you seem to overlook the possibility that perhaps Americans are simply mislabeling the movement we call liberalism. Socialism means any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. By this definition, liberalism (as we call them) in the United States are clearly working for government to take more and more control over the economy. But of course, if you compare the U.S. to Europe, China, Cuba, or much of South and Central America, then you would obviously say that the U.S. lacks "any strong socialist movement"; from that perspective you are correct. These countries are so socialized, they think they should have a right to socialize the U.S. by fiat; these socialist countries should just keep their nose in their own business and worry about the corruption in their own nations. Traditionally though, socialism is viewed as a necessary step before communism, which is how Marx explained it. So by taking that and scrutinizing U.S. politics without regard to the rest of the world, liberals in the U.S. fall well within the general definition of socialism and are even pushing the communist agenda on Americans. In the U.S., liberals argue for many Marxist ideals: that government should expand public education to completely rid the country of private education; that the income tax should be more like that of European countries, in order to appropriately redistribute wealth; that healthcare should be universally provided by the government, as in Europe; that marriage should be defined by the government without regard to religion; that government should have more authority than parents over children; that government welfare programs should be expanded; that utility bills should be subsidized for the poor; that college admissions should continue considering race/ethnicity of applicants in order to more equally represent all ethnic groups while simultaneously de-emphasizing academic ability; and much more. For you to say otherwise is absurd. And to argue that the definition of liberal has traditionally included free trade as one strong element of the movement, is only playing on words to elude the point. Liberals in America want to completely throw the free market out of the window as in the case of the California electricity crisis. Similar situations are going on all over the U.S. The liberal movement in America does not believe in free trade, it doesn't matter what the definition of liberal is; perhaps Americans should rename the so-called liberals. Instead of getting hung up over the definition of liberal, I will just call them Marxists. Or Leninists. Better yet, Bolshevik. Or maybe just plain old communists. What would you suggest? What about Maoists? Gaytan 17:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me begin by looking at your definition of socialism: You say that "Socialism means any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". That definition is close to the truth, but lacks two very important elements. First, in order for a society or economy to have any right to call itself socialist, the majority of the means of production should be under collective or government ownership. You seem to assume that any such ownership at all is sufficient for "socialism", which is a plainly absurd view. Suppose, for example, that there is a country where all companies are private, except one that is owned by the government. Is that one public company enough to make the country socialist? Of course not. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to refer to a country as "socialist" or "socialized" as long as the vast majority of the means of production remain in private hands. Thus, the countries of Europe and Central and South America are clearly capitalist; some are less capitalist than the U.S., while others are in fact more capitalist than the U.S. (e.g. Estonia, with its flat income tax).

Second, please do not forget that equality - not anything else - is the heart and soul of socialism. In theory, it is perfectly possible to have a society dominated by "collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production", but with a high degree of inequality. Such a society would not be socialist.

To say that American liberals are Marxists is an absurdity on the same level as saying that rocks are mountains, or lakes are oceans. There is simply an immense difference of scale between the goals of American liberals and the goals of Marxists. By the way, you seem to be throwing the word "Marxist" around very carelessly. "Marxist" is not a synonym for "socialist" or "communist". Socialism and communism are economic systems (and the words can also refer to any ideology that supports those economic systems). Marxism is a political philosophy, a specific ideology that supports socialism now and wishes to implement communism later. It includes a conception of history based on class struggle, a conception of economics based on the labor theory of value, and so on and so forth (I will not attempt to give you a summary of Marxism here; it would take up too much space and too much time). Simply put, Marxism is one of several different ideologies that support socialism and communism. Opposition to Marxism does not necessarily imply opposition to socialism or communism. Both socialism and communism are much older than Karl Marx. Also, you seem to be using the terms "Marxist", "Leninist", "Bolshevik" and "Maoist" interchangeably as if they meant the same thing. I know you are a Mormon, so here's a good analogy: Would it be ok with you if I used the terms "Mormon", "Catholic", "Baptist", "Lutheran" and "Protestant" interchangeably as if they meant the same thing? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 09:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny that you are so picky about words. In politics, there is a spectrum of ideas. There are some that are hard left and some that are hard right and some in between. Aside from that there are still a huge number of areas in between thos I named. Socialism is clearly on the left. Capitalism is on the right. Liberalism is on the left, conservatism on the right. But there are hundreds of in betweens in all of these political classifications. You will not allow me to related any Socialist term to the Liberals in the USA. But obviously, liberals are on the left, making them much closer to socialism and communism, than they are to capitalism. Your problem is that you believe liberals in the USA are not as far left as they true socialists should be; my problem is that I believe they are just as far left as was Marx, Lenin, or Mao. The fact is that, in reality, they are somewhere in between of both of our view of them. But they are clearly on the left side of the political spectrum and not the right. (Gaytan 17:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

About my lumping of all the socialists together (Marx, Lenin, Mao, etc.), I understand how this may be unfair in your view. I know that socialists themselves have another spectrum of ideas that differ very much. But they also have their similarities which cannot be disguised or brushed away. When I lump them together as I do, I do it because of their shared goal of absolute equality and the destruction of private property and the effect this has on free will. That is all. This is what they have in common. So if non-Christians wish to classify Mormons right along with "Catholic", "Baptist", "Lutheran" and "Protestant" and use the terms interchangeably, it would be perfectly OK, as long as their contention was based on a shared belief that they all have, such as the belief that Jesus is Deity. Or that Moses was a prophet, or that Jesus was resurrected. All of that is OK. Many people lump Jews and Christians together even though their beliefs are very different. But when this is done it is usually (and correctly) done by highlighting the fact that they share the same values and morals. Thus it is often termed "Judeo-Christian values". This "lumping" of terms is perfectly OK as long as the statement being made focuses on the similarities between the distinct groups. This is how I lump all socialists together. Marx, Lenin, and Mao very much shared the goal of creating absolute equality through government force; where they differed was how this was to be accomplished. I lump them together based on their shared goals. (Gaytan 17:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

Communism vs. Christianity

Mihnea Tudoreanu, you acknowledged that "Christianity and communism are divided into separate factions that often accuse each other of not being true Christians or true communist" and that it is "beyond the scope of this article to discuss the inner divisions". I do believe that this topic may be out of the scope of this article but should referenced to by way of a link. The referenced material should contain a more detailed discussion on what is the difference between the opposing factions, that is the Christians who do not support a state-imposed form of socialism/communism and those who do support this type of state. If this article already exists, please link this article to it. But the more I think about it, the more I believe a clear distinction needs to be made between a Christian communist/socialist and Christian Capitalist. Perhaps we should just begin describing these differences within this article until it needs to be moved. Gaytan 22:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

One thing that we must do, in order to come to any type of consensus on our disputes, is clearly define the word communism as it was understood prior to Marxist and other philosophers in recent history. I believe that the best way to do this would be to take the standard definition of communism straight from the dictionary, cleansing it of any post-biblical material, and go from there. I was under the impression that you were trying to relate Christian communism to Marx's idea of a Communist society. The Merrium-Webster online defines communism as a: a theory advocating elimination of private property and b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. I noticed that neither the Communism, Religious communism, nor the Christian communism article clearly define communism when used in terms of an ideology which predates Marxism. This definition should probably be made in the both the Religious communism and the Christian communism articles since it is appropriate in both. Gaytan 00:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Marx's idea of a communist society does not go very far beyond the dictionary definition you cited. Marx strongly believed that it is futile to plan future societies in advance. Most of his work consisted of criticisms of capitalism, not descriptions of what communism should be like. That is why so many different kinds of socialism and communism are rooted in Marxist theory: Because Marxist theory is more concerned with capitalism than with anything else. Marx did write about socialism and communism too, of course, but he only described them in vague terms. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Communism in the Bible

Other questions that still beg a response even after one understands communism to be strictly that communism as defined by the Merrium-Webster definition above are: 1) Does this article assert that the abolition of private property was clearly taught by Jesus or anywhere in the Bible? The biblical references now used to support the idea that communism was practiced in the Bible simply acknowledge that goods were shared but are completely silence about private property being abolished. 2) Does this article claim that communism as practiced by Jesus and the Apostles aimed at all people ultimately being completely equal (in terms of income, power, etc.)? What do the authors of the article have to say about the doctrine of Free Will and its compatibility to communism? The treatment of Free Will, as it currently stands in the article, looks like an argument between a couple of teenagers. It is definitely not complete and it is clearly below the standards of Wikipedia and any other Encyclopedia. I think that all of these issues must be dealt with fairly in this article (or at least linked to). We should attempt to clearly portray the similarities and differences between Marxism and Christian communism. In an article like this, readers will expect to find these issues examined. Gaytan 22:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This article, like any other good wikipedia article, does not assert or claim anything as being true. Our purpose here is not to decide what is true, but merely to report what certain other people think is true. Thus, the article should report that some people believe that the abolition of private property was clearly taught by Jesus and the Bible. It should also report that some people believe that communism as practiced by Jesus and the Apostles aimed at everyone ultimately being more or less equal (note: communism wants a high degree of equality, but not necessarily complete and absolute equality; this is a point of controversy among communists). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If our purpose is to bring to the readers' attention the various views on a subject, we should clearly substantiate all views in the article with something in order to assure the reader that Wikipedia is not simply "making things up". The issue I am specifically talking about is the issue of abolishing private property. Do Christian communists believe Christ taught the abolishment of private property? If so, then substantiate it, don't just throw it out there for everyone to believe on your word alone. Where is the proof, biblical or other, that Chrisitian communist use to assert that Christ (or His Apostles) taught such doctrines? Gaytan 21:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The biblical proof is already there in the article: Acts 2:44-45 and Acts 4:32-37. Christian communists interpret those verses to mean that the ideal Christian society is one that has abolished private property. If you're looking for words spoken by Jesus Himself, Matthew 19:16-24 is often cited. Also, Matthew 21:12-14 implies that "money changers" (i.e. the banking system, people who lend money at an interest) are thieves. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I never realized that people could/would interpret these words of Christ in such extreme ways. Each of these references must be understood in context. First of all, and most importantly, Jesus taught people to share their wealth or their possessions with the poor out of love. He never required this of them through force, as communists would like to do. He taught this by His example, something that communist leaders never have done or will do since absolute power corrupts absolutely; especially when they deny God. With this firmly in mind, each of these references can be understood accordingly and a few other thoughts can be considered as well. In Matthew 19, Jesus knows that the rich man loves his money more than God; and Jesus knows that the rich man loves his wealth and possessions more than his fellow man. In this instance, Jesus tells the man to forsake this sin of loving money. The man cannot do it and walks away in sorrow. Contrast this story to that of Zacchaeus, in Luke 19:2-9. Zacchaeus was also a rich man, a publican and known sinner. He only gave half of his income to the poor and restored those he deceived fourfold. He did not give away all of his goods as was required of the rich man in Matthew 19, but only half, and this he did by his own free will, without being asked to do so. Jesus told Zacchaeus that "this day is salvation come to this house". Zacchaeus was forgiven of his sins and his love for money. It did not require that he give all he owned to the poor. Money is not evil. The love of money is evil. And depending on the degree in which one loves money, the more it is asked of him to give to the poor, in order to suppress the temptation of loving money and to prove to God that the rich man can control his sinful desires. Everyone is different. Some are asked to give up all of their possessions, due to their extreme love of money, others only need to give some of their goods to the poor, according to their lower level of love for money. As for the money changers, these are considered thieves by Christ due to their failure to give anything to the poor and for their cruelty in extracting money deceitfully from the poor. The same thing goes on today by credit card companies who charge 20 to 30 percent in interest and then go after people for everything they own to compensate themselves. But a bank that charges reasonable rates and deals fairly with their customers and donates some of their income to charities or churches, would in no wise be viewed as thieves such as the money changer were in the New Testament. Gaytan 18:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As I explained before, your confusion arises out of a misunderstanding of what communism means and what communists want. Communism implies that all people share their posessions with each other. By itself, communism does not say why or how this sharing ought to take place. When you start asking why and how, you get to the point where you see the disagreements between various branches of communism. Sharing out of love is communism. Sharing because you are forced to share is also communism. These are simply two different kinds of communism.

I find it very interesting that even while you try to deny the validity of Christian communism, you concede the point that Christian morality is incompatible with unregulated capitalism. The difference between your views and the views of Christian communists is merely a difference of degree. For example, you believe that credit card companies are thieves, but not regular banks. Christian communists believe that both credit card companies and regular banks are thieves. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 09:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Quoting the Bible is support of "Christian Communism" can be a dangerous thing, especially when you forget to read the passage in context of the chapter, in the context of the history, and in the context of the Book - more specifically, in the context in which the author meant it to be read. Sit down and read the Book of Acts before you try to use 2 or 3 verses to support your opinion. The point to keep in mind is that we can't use the Bible to support our opinions we have to take it for what the Bible says about a matter, and the Bible, quite frankly, does not mention or hint towards communism.

Communist Dogma in this Article

The entire Controversy section must be redone. Right now it is clearly and bluntly in support of communist dogma. I thought an Encyclopedia was to remain nuetral. The tone of this section is completely on the side of the communists. Very POV. Gaytan 19:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wait, how exactly is it "in support of communist dogma"? Communist "dogma" isn't even described - let alone supported - in this article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether you agree that your writing in this article is communist dogma or not, you are clearly biased in you approach to this article in that you seem to apply a negative connotation to all your statements about traditional Christians who are not communists. The prime example is your adamant position on Free Will. You are clearly presenting many Christians as evil in your continued attempt to argue that Christians simply want to sin and that they do so by relying on their concept of Free Will. This is ridiculous. Traditional Christians do not argue that communism would infringe on people's free will by denying them the freedom to commit certain sins (such as greed or selfishness) but rather by denying them the freedom to choose for themselves what course they will follow. Traditional Christians view their ability to choose for themselves as a heavenly gift. They believe that God will not force them to follow Him but rather that God wants them to follow Him on the own Free Will.Gaytan 22:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My "continued attempt to argue that Christians simply want to sin and that they do so by relying on their concept of Free Will"?? I am extremely confused - you must have misunderstood what I wrote. The point is simply that any laws infringe on free will to some extent, and that, as such, it makes no sense to oppose some laws but not others on the grounds of free will. Communism restricts your ability to choose some things for yourself, of course, but don't murder laws, for example, also restrict your ability to choose for yourself whether you want to be a killer? The whole reason we have laws in the first place is because we don't trust people to always make the right choices for themselves (or for others). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Your original sentence in this article, of which I have issue with, was written as follows: "Another argument is often made by the Christian Right that, although communism is described in the Bible as the ideal form of society, establishing a large-scale communist system would infringe on people's free will by denying them the freedom to commit certain sins (such as greed or selfishness). You are clearly trying to represent the Christian Right's position here, which I think we would both agree is something that you cannot indiscriminately do. I did not appreciate your reference to free will as the “freedom to commit certain sins (such as greed or selfishness)” so I replaced it with a more precise and unbiased definition of the “freedom to make many decisions for themselves.” You simply reverted back to the your wording that accuses the Christian Right of arguing that communism would want to limit people’s free will to “commit certain sins (such as greed or selfishness).” It seem to me (and I am sure many others as well) that you are simply implying that the Christian Right wants to preserve the free will to sin. This is proven by your actions in the history of this article. This is what I call “communist dogma”: a communist’s attempt to vilify religion. In your case, you are covertly trying to vilify Christianity in general by vilifying the Christian Right. This is what all socialists do. It’s nothing new. It happens all over the world. So don’t worry about it, you fit right in. Gaytan 19:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Being a Christian myself, I deeply resent your accusations. You seem to be saying that the Christian Right is Christianity, so any attack on the views of the Christian Right is an attack on Christianity itself. This is not only false but frankly outrageous. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 09:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, about your main point. Both capitalism and communism employ laws to some degree, of course, albeit the latter a bit more so than the former. My entire point is this: capitalism provides and promotes to all men the freedom (free will) to progress or digress in all aspects of life as long as it doesn’t infringe on another man’s ability to do the same. Communism, on the other hand, severely limits free will to the point that spiritual, economic, and intellectual progression (or digression) are suppressed in order to achieve the supreme goal of complete and perfect equality (which is impossible anyway since absolute power leads to absolute corruption). So free will should be preserved in an attempt to allow men to do good as they please. But the downside is that in attempting to allow men to do good as they please their extended freedom also allows them to do evil as they please. Many Christians recognize this, so they view free will as necessary for the good of mankind but are mindful of its dangers and pitfalls and put laws into place that limit individuals from limiting the free will of others. Laws are a necessary thing. Moses instituted many. Jesus taught many principles that Christians view as law-like. So I am not actively promoting the prohibition of all laws; this is what communists and anarchists preach. So in this light, many Christians prefer to emphasize the positive aspects of free will; in your sentence referenced to above, you prefer to emphasize the negative aspects of free will. That is typical of a communist, of course. Gaytan 19:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your point is too vague to be of much use. You say that "capitalism provides and promotes to all men the freedom (free will) to progress or digress in all aspects of life as long as it doesn’t infringe on another man’s ability to do the same". What exactly do you mean by "the freedom to progress or digress in all aspects of life"? If a man - let's call him Jack - wants to progress in the art of murdering people, does capitalism give him the freedom to do so? Certainly murder counts as an "aspect of life", right? I guess that capitalism doesn't give you the freedom to progress in all "aspects of life" after all. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 09:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Even at the Second Coming, when Christ comes, a government will exist, albeit a perfect one. But still, this does not fit into the communist utopia anyways. Even after He destroys and rids the earth of wicked men, Christ will not take away man’s free will thus he will not force man to do anything. He will inspire men to serve others and to give to the poor, this is true. He will love His fellow man and will encourage all those left on earth to do the same. Men will follow Him in His example because they love Him and will learn to love the fellow man as well. Only Satan seeks to destroy free will. He is the one who leads people to be addicted to drugs, sexual immorality, money and other carnal pleasures thereby robbing them of their free will through addiction. It is he who inspires men to destroy free will. It is he that was cast from heaven (Revelation 12:9). It is he who sought to replace God (Isaiah 14:12-15). What a striking resemblance Satan has to communism! No wonder many Christians resent the paradoxical idea of “Christian communism”. Gaytan 19:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Free will is always good and lack thereof is always bad? That would imply that it is good for a man to use his free will to decide to rape someone, and it would also imply that if a man is robbed of his free will through a compulsive addiction to help others, this must be the work of Satan. Be careful what you say. Free will and good and evil are quite separate things. Free will allows for both good and evil to happen. And in the absence of free will, people can be constrained to do good just as much as they can be constrained to do evil. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 09:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have actually read the Bible and have found it lacking in support of "Communism" or "Christian Communism." I am not suggesting that I am religious - but that Jesus does not support "Communism" and neither does the rest of the New Testament, more specifically - the Book of Acts. Read it in context - good hermenutics and critical realism - is necessary in understanding the text. One point to keep in mind is that we are not supposed to use the Bible to support our ideas or notions about "Communism" or "Christian Communism" (not matter how much we want it to be true).

Christian Viewpoint

Mihnea Tudoreanu, you never did respond to my concerns on the Christian communism discussion page, so here they are paraphrased:

I applaud your work in correctly deciding creating a Christian communism page completely separate from the Religious communism page. You have also justifiably placed a link to the Christian communism page in the Religious communism page along with a brief statement regarding the controversy surrounding the idea of Christian communism.

Where I disagree is how you have improperly and conveniently failed to add most of the Christian communism section that was removed from the Religious communism article to the Christian communism article. It appears that you have filled this article with socialist POV material instead of using the cited material that was originally removed from Religious communism article. I added the deleted material from the religious communism page on to the Christian communism page and now come to find that it was again deleted by you with no explanation aside from “Christian communism is not Marxism; of course Marxists disagree with it”. My reponse: Of course you, Mihnea Tudoreanu, understand that Marxists disagree with Christian communism, but many Wikipedia readers do not. You and I may understand this fact, but many others do not. Wikipedia needs to address this for the clarification of the reader. This page, as it stands, seems to propogate the idea that Christians are imitating communism. The readers will come away misleaded. Clearly, an NPOV and scholarly article on this topic would include similarities and differences between Christian communism and communism, Marxism, or socialism. Viewpoints from both the socialists and Christians would have to be effectively accounted for in some way. Perhaps my article was too far to the right, and surely, your article is too far to the left.

1. Marx’s statements which differentiate religion from communism need to be included to show the difference between the two philospophies. 2. Free will must also be mentioned in behalf of Christians (not just against them, as you have done). 3. If Biblical references are used to support the socialist viewpoint, then would it not be appropriate to use Biblical references for the Christian viewpoint as well? Last I checked, the Bible was the fundamental block of Christianity not communism.

A Christian cannot speak for a Communist, nor can a Communist speak for a Christian. This page is almost entirely written in a manner similar to a Communist speaking for a Christian. In the meantime I will simply revert the page until we can communicate on this subject. I will also copy this into the Christian communism Talk page (since that is where it belongs and that is where this communication should be continued). Gaytan 18:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Do not presume to speak for all Christians. I happen to consider myself a Christian, yet I will not assume that all Christians agree with my religious views - let alone my political ones. Also, please do not blanket revert the entire article; rather, edit only the parts you consider POV or controversial. This will avoid getting the non-controversial parts of the article changed for no good reason. As for your objections to my edits, I have answered them above. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well then, what we should probably agree to is that you can try to write for the Christian Socialists and I can try to write for the Christian Capitalists. What do you think? Oh and sorry for the revert. But you basically did the same to my changes when you failed to incorporate any of them into this article after you removed them from Religious communism article.Gaytan 22:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure we can put the whole revert issue behind us. As for continuing edits on this article, your plan sounds good, but will it be really necessary? I mean, our dispute seems to be confined to a small number of words and sentences now. By the way, you asked for a clarification regarding the idea that "a government by God is fundamentally different from a government by human beings". Well, essentially, this refers to the view that God is perfect, while humans are not. Therefore, a government by God could be perfect, benevolent and omniscient, while a government by human beings could not. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why communism is so flawed. Communists nations typically remove God from the picture completely. They believe that a government founded on God would be an unjust theocracy. So they try to replace God with the "Government" or the "Communist Party". But God is perfect, His government will be perfect. Any attempt for man take full control in government by removing God from the equation will only find that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any drastic and positive change in government can only be done with the aid and will of God. Any attempts that do not realize this will only fall into corruption. That's why many Christians are so offended by even the title of this article. They cannot understand how anyone could put a word like "Christian" which emphasizes a love of God next to a word like "communism" which is so hateful of God. Gaytan 18:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing "hateful of God" in communism, as can be plainly seen by the communist society in which the Apostles and early Christians lived. As I noted above, communism simply means a socio-economic system in which there is no private property, no state and no social classes, and in which people share goods and services according to the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". What part of that is even remotely opposed to God? I was under the impression that sharing your belongings was a virtue often preached by Christ. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what exactly do you mean by "a government founded on God"? Clearly, God does not and will not use his power to exercise direct state authority, at least not until the Second Coming. God's government will be perfect, but such a government can only be established by God Himself, not by men claiming to act in His name (that's what a theocracy is: a government by men claiming to act in the name of God). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Misquotes

It is always important to keep quotes in context. Gaytan, you have asserted that the Communist Manifesto contains the words "Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality...". This is true, but the context is as follows:

[...]

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

[...] [1]

The Manifesto is not saying that communism abolishes all eternal truths, religion and morality. It is saying that the enemies of communism accuse it of abolishing all eternal truths, religion and morality. There is a major difference between discussing an idea and endorsing that idea. A Biblical scholar should be well aware of this, since misquoting Biblical verses out of context has been a favourite strategy used to discredit Christianity. (Of course, the words of Marx are by no means holy to communists, and some of the most prominent communists in history - such as Lenin - have openly and vehemently disagreed with Marx on vital issues. But this is an entirely different discussion.) -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 03:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Another misquote is the statement, by Marx, that "the state can and must go as far as the abolition of religion, the destruction of religion. But it can do so only in the same way that it proceeds to the abolition of private property..." Again, Marx was not talking about something that he actually supported. The full quote, in context, is as follows:

The decomposition of man into Jew and citizen, Protestant and citizen, religious man and citizen, is neither a deception directed against citizenhood, nor is it a circumvention of political emancipation, it is political emancipation itself, the political method of emancipating oneself from religion. Of course, in periods when the political state as such is born violently out of civil society, when political liberation is the form in which men strive to achieve their liberation, the state can and must go as far as the abolition of religion, the destruction of religion. But it can do so only in the same way that it proceeds to the abolition of private property, to the maximum, to confiscation, to progressive taxation, just as it goes as far as the abolition of life, the guillotine. At times of special self-confidence, political life seeks to suppress its prerequisite, civil society and the elements composing this society, and to constitute itself as the real species-life of man, devoid of contradictions. But, it can achieve this only by coming into violent contradiction with its own conditions of life, only by declaring the revolution to be permanent, and, therefore, the political drama necessarily ends with the re-establishment of religion, private property, and all elements of civil society, just as war ends with peace.

Indeed, the perfect Christian state is not the so-called Christian state – which acknowledges Christianity as its basis, as the state religion, and, therefore, adopts an exclusive attitude towards other religions. On the contrary, the perfect Christian state is the atheistic state, the democratic state, the state which relegates religion to a place among the other elements of civil society. The state which is still theological, which still officially professes Christianity as its creed, which still does not dare to proclaim itself as a state, has, in its reality as a state, not yet succeeded in expressing the human basis – of which Christianity is the high-flown expression – in a secular, human form. The so-called Christian state is simply nothing more than a non-state, since it is not Christianity as a religion, but only the human background of the Christian religion, which can find its expression in actual human creations. [2]

In the first paragraph, Marx talks about a specific kind of revolution - the one that "can and must go as far as the abolition of religion" - which he believes is doomed to fail. In the second paragraph, he argues that only an "atheist state" - that is, one which has implemented a separation of Church and state - can be truly Christian. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 03:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct with regard to the first quote, taken from the Communist Manifesto. But don't you think that it is strange the way Marx predicted what his accusers would say yet fails to even attempt to correct this accusation against him? He admits that his accusers will argue that communism seeks to abolish religion, among other things, but all he says in rebuttal is that this accusation reduces to evidence that demonstrates his theory of class antagonism and that "exploitation of one part of society by the other" is a fact "common to all past ages". Well Karl Marx, many people accuse you of abolishing religion, and you knew this would happen, so what do you say in defending yourself against this accusation? Well Mihnea Tudoreanu, Marx hinted about how he would defend himself against this accusation within his Manifesto, "The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas. Does "traditional ideas" include eternal truths, religion, and morality? All of these being traditional ideas of course.

In “Private Property and Communism”, Marx deals with the issue of the Creation; the creation of man and earth. He explains that creationary theory has received a “mighty blow” from geognosy, the science which represents the development of the earth as a process. He argues that man owes his existence to man: “Now it is certainly easy to say to the single individual what Aristotle has already said: You have been begotten by your father and your mother; therefore in you the mating of two human beings – a species-act of human beings – has produced the human being. You see, therefore, that even physically man owes his existence to man.”

Marx then asserts that to argue over the creation is to argue over the abstract: “When you ask about the creation of nature and man, you are abstracting, in so doing, from man and nature. You postulate them as non-existent, and yet you want me to prove them to you as existing. Now I say to you: Give up your abstraction and you will also give up your question. Or if you want to hold on to your abstraction, then be consistent, and if you think of man and nature as non-existent, then think of yourself as non-existent, for you too are surely nature and man.”

But the socialist man does not trifle with such abstractions because according to Marx, “for the socialist man the entire so-called history of the world is nothing but the creation of man through human labour, nothing but the emergence of nature for man, so he has the visible, irrefutable proof of his birth through himself, of his genesis.” Because the existence of man is evident through sensual experiences, “the question about an alien being, about a being above nature and man – a question which implies the admission of the unreality of nature and of man – has become impossible in practice.”

Marx explains that communism has no need for atheism because where atheism postulates the existence of man through the negation of God, communism proposes the existence of man through human labor. Therefore communism negates the atheist’s negation of God through his idea of human labor: "Atheism, as the denial of this unreality [God], has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a negation of God, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation. It proceeds from the theoretically and practically sensuous consciousness of man and of nature as the essence. Socialism is man’s positive self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the abolition of religion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no longer mediated through the abolition of private property, through communism."

Marx continues, "Communism is the position as the negation of the negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human development, the form of human society.”

So Marx responds to the accusation of “abolishing religion” by arguing that the idea of a Creation, or a God, presupposes that man and nature are unreal. Therefore because man and nature are obviously real, the Creation is nonsense, God is non-existent, atheism or the negation of God are pointless, and thus the abolishing of religion is meaningless. Marx did not wish to abolish religion, he just wanted to relegate it to something unsubstantial and to ridicule it and those who practiced it. All of his works and those of Engels display this anti-religious mentality. To argue against this is to be in a state of denial. No wonder the quote “Religion is the opium of the masses” is often contributed to him. It seems as though he may have actually coined that phrase.

In the second quote, taken from "On the Jewish Question", Marx clearly argues that a perfect Christian state is an "atheistic state", one that "relegates religion to a place among the other elements of civil society". In other words, religion should be not be abolished, but rather religion should be subdued in order to decrease its station in society. Marx believed that men used religion to perpetuate class antagonism. In order to arrest religion, it should forcibly be de-emphasized to the point in which it would have no more influence or power than anything or anyone else in society. It should be no more important than anything: art, music, animals, employment, welfare, etc. It should have no role in government. Government must have authority over the church, not vice versa. But in order to accomplish this, it's actions and its teachings should always be checked and monitored. The church, and all religions in general, must be made subject to government. In this view of things, the government is above all and accountable to none. Why even God is no match for communist government, in Marx's mind. Gaytan 22:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I have with this is that much of the biblical references quoted - in support of Christian Communism - are misquoted. Please learn to study the Bible before you flip through a concordance to try and support your own viewpoint. If you want to know what the Bible says about communism then read it in context, and seek to learn what the Bible has to say about this topic, since we're calling it 'Christian' we should let the Bible form our opinion.

Christian anarchism and Christian communism

I believe their differences and similarities are not because Christian anarchism is more radical; as I recall, Christian anarchism is compatible with Christian communism and vice versa - just that the emphasis (on economics, or political/ordained orders) is different. Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The Biblical passage also referenced (Acts 2) is also taken out of context.

This is... uggh..

Okay, first off we need to lay out (a concise outline or list would be good) the problems and conflicts involving this article. Biblical support for both viewpoints needs to be clearly established, and the particular political/religious goals of Christian Communism and regular Marxism need to be clarified.

Agreed. That is what I was asking for from the beginning. Because clearly now, we both have our biases; you will try to show how Communism compliments Christianity and I will fight to show how Communism frustrates Christianity. But the idea to clearly express both sides here and to methodically go through to show the differences and similarities between the two philosophies will definitely raise the calibur of this article. (Gaytan 22:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC))

And just to set the record straight Gaytan, though the idea of a Christian Socialist/Communist is probably an oxymoron to you, they are out there, they read their Bibles, and they have just as much faith in Christ as any other Christian. If people would take their heads out of their butts once in a while, maybe they'd see that God, in fact, does NOT command 'Thou shalt be a conservative.', but that he commands us to give up our worldly possessions, to not repay evil with evil, and to help widows and orphans, as THAT is true and pure religion. Have you ever bothered to think that maybe God doesn't approve of Donald Trump stuffing his pockets with cash every five minutes, or that maybe, just MAYBE, socialism/communism doesn't even have to involve an overpowering state? Isn't the excessive patriotism in the US just as large a distraction from God as it was in Soviet Russia?

Just like a good socialist. Water down religion to summarize it in one short sentance. I am sorry, but there is simply much more to religion than what you included in your brief sentance. Typical of a socialist is to try to neglect 99.9% of the Bible and say that God is simply pure Love. Do the socialist Bibles just throw out all the New Testament references to the JUSTICE, WRATH, and VENGEANCE of God? What about Hell and the "gnashing of teeth" that will be heard from those poor souls who partake of God's wrath? What about the Second Coming, where Christ will burn the wicked into stubble as described in the Book of Revelation? What about the poor souls that God struck dead when they knowingly broke His laws? Sure God is Love, but he does not neglect His Justice; He perfects His Mercy through the use of Justice and vice versa. Mercy cannot overpower Justice nor can Justice overpower Mercy. Your Bible must have conveniently left these parts out, huh? (Gaytan 00:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC))

But anyway. Let's just set down what our goals are, and try to work on some sort of compromise.

I assume that this last post was made by Mihnea Tudoreanu or is it Nikodemos now? This is confusing; let's try keeping one name, huh? (Gaytan 22:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC))

No, I did not write that post. When I make comments I sign them. (though my username did change, true enough; I do mention this change in my signature) I would also never throw around empty insults or generalizations like that. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 10:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What?! How can you make such a sweeping attack on conservatism with crude generalities and NOT expect a rebuttal? Are you serious? "Take their heads out of their butts" you say? Do we have to resort to name-calling now? I never said that all conservatives are saints. Of course, it is a wide spectrum and the right has its loons as well. But looking at well established goals of both sides, I believe conservatives line up much closer to being a friend of religion in general than do socialists. Instead of brushing all conservatives off with one broad stroke, how about some clear cut ISSUES to highlight that show conservatives are an enemy to Christianity? Not very many. You may find some individual, so-called conservatives like Donald Trump who may be abusing the system, filthy rich, and neglecting the poor. But even these conservatives are not very conservative in that they only use conservatism for its support of business. These conservatives are only fiscally conservative but definitely not socially conservative. But for the most part, filthy rich individuals are usually entertainers, movie stars, pop stars, sports stars or other celebrities; all of which are very socialistic, both fiscally and socially. Most conservatives are hard working folks and are both fiscally and socially conservative. Please name one rich, social conservative abusing the system and neglecting the poor? Not very many. You, and many other socialists, always depict conservatives as rich, stingy, hypocrites who only wish to build their wealth off of the poor working class. Social conservatives are completely against this. A real conservative is one who is both fiscally AND socially conservative. It is not enough to be fiscally conservative only. So looking at U.S. politics, there really is no conservative party per se, since the Republican party is losing its social conservative step by allowing it to be diminished by for "filthy lucre's" sake. But getting back to the topic, what truly conservative goal is out of step with Christianity or religion in general? I can't think of one myself. Could you?

That depends on how you define "truly conservative", of course, but I would say that fiscal conservatism is a great enemy of religion and Christianity in particular (though an insidious and often overlooked one). Social conservatism is an ally of religion and morality, but it would be far more effective in its goals if it abandoned fiscal conservatism. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 10:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Now let's turn the table, how many clear cut issues are there of socialists, past and present, which anatagonize religion or are an enemy to all religions, with Christianity currently in it's noose? Do you need me to name a few?

Perhaps I should note that the first modern socialists (namely Robert Owen and the Comte de Saint-Simon in the early 1800s) were devout Christians and based their socialism on Christian principles. It was only later, in the second half of the 19th century, that secularism prevailed within the socialist movement. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 10:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

A few that I mentioned above are: that government should expand public education to completely rid the country of private education and thereby reducing religion's role in society; that the income tax should be more like that of European countries, in order to redistribute wealth by force without regard to Christianity's free will; that healthcare should be universally provided by the government, as in Europe, again imposing on an individual's God-given right of free will; that marriage should be defined by the government without regard to religion; that government should have more authority than parents over children without regard to the religious beliefs of parents; that government welfare programs should be expanded, again, free will is trampled upon and the poor are locked into perpetual poverty; that college admissions should continue considering race/ethnicity of applicants in order to more equally represent all ethnic groups while simultaneously de-emphasizing academic ability, thus minorities are made superior to whites, effectively neglecting the Christian idea that God made all men equal; the planned overthrow of the free market in order completely extinguish free will and tha ability for man to "reap what he sows" as in the case of the California electricity crisis; in public schools, God and the Creation have been completely brushed aside for the more intellectual and politically correct theory of evolution; the known socialist group in the U.S., the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union, consistently attacks religious morality and Christianity by removing Judao-Christian symbols from historical government buildings, removing crosses from war memorials, defending child pornographers and child molesters, and supporting pornagraphy. (Gaytan 22:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC))

We have already discussed free will extensively above, but you know what I'm starting to wonder? How come you defend the freedom to be immoral by hoarding money, living in luxury and not helping the poor (it is apparently your "God-given right" to be uncaring, selfish and greedy; strange how Jesus never mentioned this) - but not the freedom to be immoral by watching and promoting pornography, having sexual intercourse with complete strangers in public, or molesting children? Free will cannot apply selectively to some immoral activities but not others. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 09:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And also, not all socialists agree with each other; Christian anarchism advocates abolishing the state completely, this would be most likely replaced with a form of other - a gift economy. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

So it looks like we all (Natalinasmpf, Nikodemos and myself) agree (I think) that social conservatism is in fact supportive of religion, morality, etc. Where we disagree is fiscal conservatism: I believe this is necessary for Christianity due to the Free Will argument; you can't force someone to give to the poor, sick, or the orphaned no matter how you try to justify it. You both seem to disagree with that. I offer you these words:

1. 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. (2 Corinthians 9:6-7)

This says that you should give out of generosity and love; you should not feel sad or resentful that you are helping others. On the contrary, you should feel cheerful in sharing. Precisely what communists want. Keep in mind that a communist society does not involve forcibly taking things from people and giving them to others; rather, it involves the abolition of private property - it involves everyone sharing things with everyone else. Not grudgingly, but willingly. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 07:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, communist wish that all the people in their countries would give cheerfully, but that is impossible; be reasonable. Communist live in a dream world. People cannot give cheerfully unless God has touched their hearts and minds in a way that will make them want to give cheerfully. But communists cannot try this since most of them are athiest. (Gaytan 00:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

Have you taken a look at anarchist communism and gift economy yet? You are using a circular argument here, nearly begging the question. Christians cannot be communist because cheerful giving requires God to touch their hearts, and that cannot happen because communism is athiest. You are using the argument that communism is athiest to support the argument that....communism is athiest. This is a clear logical fallacy. So what if the majority of Marxist-Leninists are athiest? That doesn't mean Christians can't be communist. In fact, many so-called communists aren't communists at all, just state socialists. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-communist Christians cannot understand why any Christian would align themselves behind atheistic communists. Why would a Christian struggle to share a title adored by atheists? (Gaytan 15:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

You're using a logical fallacy here. Communism does not obligate athiesm. In fact, it becomes increasingly harder to become athiest and altruistic at the same time...why do I struggle to align myself a label that athiests share? Firstly, that many athiests already hate the communist label, being one, and therefore, struggle to take a label that is hated, and that secondly, it is a matter of principle. If you want to argue about semantics, fine. You cannot rant against communism just because of its name. You cannot argue about how Stalinist or evil or oxymoronic Christian communism just because some people who called themselves communist hijacked a cause in the last century. Should people disdain Christianity because of the atrocities committed by Crusaders, torture by the Inquisition, or for the Witch Trials at Salem? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

2. And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins. Use hospitality one to another without grudging. (1 Peter 4:8-9)

Same as above. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 07:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. (1 Peter 5:2-4)

I'm seeing a pattern here. You do not seem to realize that communism wants people to share things willingly. Let me make an analogy with another sin that we often mention: murder. We have laws in place against murder, but those laws are not the only thing stopping people from going on a murderous rampage. Most people willingly choose not to murder. The laws are in place to protect this majority from a small minority who do not willingly choose to respect others' lives. If the majority of people wanted to murder, laws would probably not be enough to stop them anyway, and society would break down. In a communist society, most people share things willingly, and laws on communal property are only in place to protect this majority from a small minority who wish to hoard things and keep them to themselves. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 07:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"In a communist society, most people share things willingly?" Is that right? I cannot believe you wrote this with a straight face. They were forced to share. They do it grudgingly because the government massacred those who would not comply to these new communist laws (See the horrors of Mao, Stalin, Castro, and even Lenin). People in communist countries share because they have no other choice. You can't force people to be good. Nations should have laws to keep evil people and their evil practices locked up in jail. Anything beyond that is ubsurd. You cannot legislate happiness. The people have to choose this for themselves. Just look at the biblical references I gave you and be realistic. You cannot be reasonable and still maintain your position. (Gaytan 00:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

Yes. A pure communist society exists without need of a state. It seems you have a misconception of communism. Even the final stage advocated by Leninism is stateless, the problem is that Marxist-Leninist theory allows for an intermediary socialist government in transition that has sweeping powers. However, this is opposed by anarchists. Coercion by Mao and Stalin were not communist laws, they were state-socialist, or even state-capitalist (as there was nothing communal about it, especially with a strong central government. You can't legislate happiness, naturally. But you can use principles to prevent a small minority hijacking the majority. Yes, people have to choose this for themselves. What were you thinking? That people would be forced to be Christian, and forced to participate in a communist society? In any case, they may be preached to, but that's moral conviction — it's not coercion to convince someone to give, especially using positive incentives. Laws are principles - not laws enforced in the usual sense, but it probably could be enforced through shunning. A society that does not share willing cannot be communist. You can have nations run by a self-prescribed Communist Party, but they are not communist, but merely Communist. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

4. And they with whom precious stones were found gave them to the treasure of the house of the LORD, by the hand of Jehiel the Gershonite. Then the people rejoiced, for that they offered willingly, because with perfect heart they offered willingly to the LORD: and David the king also rejoiced with great joy. (1 Chronicles 29:8-9)

5. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering. (Exodus 25:1-2) God wants offering to be willfully given; otherwise he doesn't want nothing at all.

6. Elsewhere it has been said "if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God."

4-6: Again, see above. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 07:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This is all just like most parents with their kids. All parents wish their kids would just do the right things on their own, without being forced to do it. Sometimes, parents get fed up, and won't even accept what a child does unless it was done willfully. So it is with our Father in Heaven. Jesus taught that laws and punishment were both necessary, which neither of you seem to understand. In all of His teachings and parables, there are always consequences for someone making a decision contrary to that which is honest, good, or loving. Also, I NEVER HAVE SAID ANYTHING TO PROMOTE OR DEFEND THE LIFESTYLE OF "HOARDING MONEY" as Nikodemos contends. Clearly from my posts in this discussion, you should know that. I have said Republicans in the USA are losing their social conservativism and their supporters due to their love of "filthy lucre" (1 Timothy Chapter 3). I am treating all sin alike: God’s plan considers man’s free will to be sacred. This means man’s free will to choose to do anything, good or evil. If it’s evil you are talking about, then “hoarding money” and failing to give to the poor is clearly evil, just as is rape or murder. That’s not too say that all evil is counted equally before God, of course. Some things are worse than others in God’s eyes. Just check out Matthew 12:31; Matthew 16:27; Matthew 22:38; Matthew 23:23; John 19:11; Exodus 32:31;compare Exodus 21:16 to Exodus 22:1. So if you wish to debate, do so truthfully. Counter the issues I raise, don’t just attack by emotion. I have answered your issues, how about answering mine? Just like a socialist though, they never do debate an issue head on, they always have to sidestep the real issue and then criticize conservatives by appealing to emotions. (Gaytan 00:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC))

Must you always end your comments with an ad hominem attack on socialists or communists? If anyone is engaging in unethical debate tactics here, that is you. I do not recall ever making an appeal to emotions. I am making a very simple point: You say that "hoarding money and failing to give to the poor is clearly evil, just as is rape or murder". I completely agree, and could not have said it better myself. But, in that case, why do you support laws against rape and murder, but not laws against hoarding money and failing to give to the poor? God clearly wants people to be generous and share their posessions willingly, but He also wants them to refrain from murder and rape willingly. This does not mean that He opposes the establishment of laws to encourage moral behaviour and condemn certain sins. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 07:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

JK the unwise has justifiably asked us to continue this debate elsewhere. But before this debate closes here, let it be defined that an ad hominem attack is one that appeals to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect or is marked by attacking an opponent's character rather than by answering to the contentions made. I leave this to the judgement of the unbiased reader of this discussion. Who is using ad hominem attacks here? Who has made any attempt whatsoever to support their contentions in this discussion? Who has appealed to the audience's feelings rather than their intellect? Who has directly attacked their opponent's character rather than answering to the contentions made? That's all for now. (Gaytan 16:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. Rather then debating whether the scriptures support communism you should document what others have said about them. This article should firstly be about the ideas and practices of "Christian communists" (with appropreate references) and secondly about the controvercy around those ideas (with appropreate references), as they are certianly not the mainstream current in the Christian movement. So please take your debate to the appropreate discusion forum and concentrate here on documenting the Christian communist movement. --JK the unwise 08:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

We're not trying to get our own thoughts and analyses included in the article, JK, we're only discussing them on this Talk page. But you are right, of course, that Talk pages are supposed to be used for discussing how to improve the article, not debating the article's subject. With that in mind, I believe we should try to find ways to expand the Brief History and Christian communists sections, as they are currently stubs. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 17:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually Gaytan (And yeah, I'm the one from before) I do not neglect the Bible. I believe in every single passage in Scripture, and I do believe that God will pour out divine justice on those who are hurting humanity. However, the ones who I believe are hurting humanity are probably not those who you think are doing the most harm. To be sure though, I do not condone sin, though I do struggle with it as everyone else. I merely do not think that judging others while working under the cover of "saving them from sin" is love. You can certainly tell someone that what they are doing is not what God wants, without elevating it above all other sins and saying that it is a plague or society or makes one more evil than someone else. Sin prevents us from having a close relationship with God, but if we are saved and love him then sins such as homosexuality, lying, lust, greed, etc. do not make us go to hell.

So, don't just assume that every Christian who is on the left is not theologically conservative, and is just into some Unitarian Universalist movement that has no basis in Christ whatsoever. That is a fairly common assumption, but I can assure you that it isn't the case. I can give you some Scriptural arguments for my positions as well, if need be.

Shouldn't this article mention the shakers?

I mean, they were Christians and practiced a communal form of life, so aren't they Christian communists? If yes, then they should be mentioned here. If not, then they should still be mentioned and it should be explained why they don't qualify as Christian communists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.233.25 (talk • contribs) 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if you think it should be added, go right ahead. The Brief History section of this article is a stub, you are encourage to add to it. I, for one, know very little about the Shakers; only enough to be dangerous. Someone more familiar with the subject and who is interested should write it. (Gaytan 23:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC))

Communism or Communalism

I changed this paragraph because it used Trotskyism as validation of using the word "communism" instead of "communalism". While I understand that Trotskyism was a major opponent of 20th century so-called communist nations, I do not see how Trotskyism allows the word "communism" to be more compatible to Christianity because of it. In my mind, Trotskyism promotes behavior that is very un-Christian-like: violent revolutions to overthrow capitalism, primarily. Others include, as I have listed in the article, cult of personality, orchestrated mass murder, atheism, and the practical abolishment of free will. (Gaytan 23:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC))

Well, I was able to make your paragraph discussing those a bit less POV while still keeping the main point intact, however let's go over one or two things:

1. Perhaps provide some actual quotes or evidence that the revolutionary action proposed by Trotsky was, in fact, a violent one, and also, perhaps we should create a chart that compares Soviet and Maoist-style communism with the principles advocated by Christian communism.

2. A few examples of pre-Marx Christian thinkers who would be considered, by most standards, as following a form of communism, socialism or communalism. It seems that the main focus (though certainly not the entirety) of this article is the controversy over the term "Christian communism" and what it implies, rather than a balanced look at what its advocates view as its positive points and Biblical/religious evidence for their viewpoint, as well as the viewpoints of those who object to Christian communism, and their respective Biblical/religious evidence.

Mister Mister 23:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Mister Mister seems to have a good approach outlined here. The only problem we are going to have is that, because the Bible is open to many interpretations, this may turn into a Biblical citing match. Your point number 1 is definitely worth a shot. Point number 2 may be a bit more difficult to accomplish. But we sure can give it a try, I guess. (Gaytan 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Removal?

I'm not going to rush and do anything before reaching an agreement, but do you think it might be a good idea to remove the Christianity template? We already have one for Communism as it is, and there is a section within the Communism one for Christian Communism, while it is absent in the actual template for Christianity. Just thought it might improve the article in a visual sense and keep things a bit less cluttered.

Mister Mister 00:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the picture of the cross with the links underneath it, then I would like to offer my opinion: I think it should stay. This article is about both Christianity and communism, not just one or the other. (Gaytan 22:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Strong's Concordance

I have not removed it, but I personally believe that using a Greek concordance in this article is going a bit overboard. It seems clear enough that communist sympathizers do have some ground upon which to stand on for their argument that the Bible supports communism. This is clear from the English version currently referred to in this article already. It just seems that this paragraph that goes into the Greek meaning of "Fellowship" is spinning its wheels in this section. I vote that it be removed. The biblical references alone are very clear. Treatment of the word "fellowship" seems to ruin the flow of the article. (Gaytan 00:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

Well, I would agree that using a Greek concordance is going a bit overboard. Could you tell me what section you are speaking of that talks about fellowship, though? It may just be that I'm tired, but I'm not noticing it on the page or in the history.

Also... I don't want to sound rude or anything, but you don't have to use the phrase "communist sympathizers". I'm not sure if it's intentional but it just kind of sounds like a grouping everyone into one box/disparaging kind of statement. ..Eh, nevermind that though. I'm going to be looking up some more information and Biblical references for both pro and con viewpoints.

Mister Mister 13:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Mister, the section I am talking about is in the Early Christian communism section where the reference to Acts 2:42-45 is made. In the discussion following this reference, the Greek derivation of the word "fellowship" is discussed. And sorry for the "communist sympathizer" remark; I am still trying to learn how to get along with communists. I am exactly opposed to communism and usually when I make a change to this article, my changes are cleansed of POV anti-communist statements. But I will admit, lately the communist-leaning writers of this article are not just throwing all of my work out the window; they are working things out with me. Anyways, let's figure out what to do with the Greek concordance stuff. (Gaytan 15:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Sorry about not seeing that, I was really groggy and kind of vomiting a lot yesterday, so my perception and ability to notice things wasn't exactly top-notch. Anyway, about the condordance issue. At this point, I think I'd have to agree. The majority of the verses listed could be used to support Christian communism if taken from a certain perspective, and as such listing the Greek truthfully is a bit unnecessary. So, I think I'll just delete that section. If anyone would rather not delete it, please feel free to discuss it here.

Mister Mister 19:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I deleted the concordance paragraph. However, I now feel that the section as a whole is a bit lacking in content. It just seems a bit too short to me and isn't really explaining much. Perhaps we could discuss how Christian communists see these verses as related to key communist concepts? I'm not sure, I'm just kind of throwing some ideas out at the moment. Either way, the section does need a bit of expanding in my opinion, so any thoughts would be appreciated.

Mister Mister 19:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A discussion about how these verses are used as evidence of communism can be added; I certainly will not do it since it will not be very unbiased. The only other thing I can think to add to this section is more evidence and discussion about other Christian communists that may have existed in the ancient Church. There are many Christian groups, as I am sure you all know about. Perhaps the early Catholic Church (Tertullian, Clement, Constantine, Augustine)) or Gnostics practiced something resembling communism. Or what about the ancient Jews? After all, the history of Christianity is the history of Judaism. Some research will be needed of course. (Gaytan 00:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

Free Will

I have added some material in the Free Will section of the article. Please review and edit objectively. I have tried to be as NPOV as possible; of course, I cannot be the sole judge of that. But the material I based this addition to was from a notable anti-Communist Christian author, W. Cleon Skousen, so I have done like Wikipedia asks; I have sources for my editing. So don't delete it. If you edit, pleasse be aware that I am using a source for this material, so if something is edited to change the meaning of the material drastically, I will redo it to restore the meaning. And I have a source to back up my material. After all, I am an anti-Communist Christian and this is who I claim to represent when I edit. So if you change the overall meaning of my work, you better expect me to challenge you. (Gaytan 17:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

I am running very low on time at the moment, so I can only make a couple of quick comments: First, the new material you have added does not really contribute any new arguments; it merely opens up discussion of a new set of Biblical quotes and re-states the same arguments that were made before (along with the claim that communism necessarily infringes on free will, which communists reject; voluntary communism is communism too). Second, would you mind if I summarized the information you just added to make the article more concise? Third, I think we should refrain from adding up too much text to the already dominant Controversy section unless we come across some radically new arguments; as it stands now, we seem to be simply giving more elaborate descriptions of the same argument. -- Nikodemos 21:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that no new arguments have been made here. What has been done by adding this section into the free will argument is that there is a legitimate reason, backed with referenced material from anti-communist Christians, as to why some Christians (anti-communists Christians) are against communism. The added material also describes the anti-communist Christian view of the biblical references commonly used to argue that early Christians practiced communism. Deleting this material from the free will argument will make the anti-communist view point look like heresay. This material was obtained from famous anti-communist Christian material. Don't delete it just because you don't agree with it. You say Christian communists reject the idea that communism necessarily infringes on free will. Well, if that is true, show how it is true and back it up with some references from a genuine communist Christian. I will accept that but I will not accept deletion of my material based on the grounds you have provided. Second, about making the free will section more concise, we can try to do that, I don't mind; as long as the meaning is kept intact. And finally third, about the controversy section being too long, that's your opinion. What should be done, split the article? I don't think it's that long yet. If balance is what you are looking for, then balance it. I am providing this article with the anti-communist Christian side. Many of the other editors of this article, including you Nikodemos, are writing for the Christian communist side. Just as you will not fairly portray my side, I cannot fairly portray your side. So get to work, Christian communists.

I didn't think socialists knew what balance meant; comparing the Christian right article to the Christian left article, it looks as if socialists have complete control of the editing of both. The Christian right page is full of criticisms while the Christian left is completely lacking in the same regard. Don't believe me? Just do a search on each article for the word "critic" and you will immediately see what I am talking about. Looks like Christian conservatives like me are definitely in the minority here in Wikipedia. So please, don't harp at me about balance. In Wikipedia, if you play by the rules, you need to balance an article if you think it is biased. You can't just go reverting and deleting.(Gaytan 14:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

Wait, you almost slipped that one past me. You are changing the meaning of communism now. There is no such thing as voluntary communism; that would be communalism. The meaning of "communism", according to Merriam-Webster dictionary, is 1: a theory advocating elimination of private property and 2: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. Communism requires the elimination of private property. This can only be done by force, thereby robbing the free will of the individual. So really, many early Christians, Mormons and ancient Christians, shared their property voluntarily, so this should not be labelled as communism. In the same dictionary, "communalism" is a form of the word "communal" which is defined as 1: characterized by collective ownership and use of property and 2: participated in, shared, or used in common by members of a group or community. Communalism is thus instituted voluntarily, communism is implemented by force. I think this should be added to the article now. Any objections? Speak now or forever hold you peace. (Gaytan 15:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

The elimination of private property requires no force whatsoever. After all, private property is enforced by law: The law determines how you can own things, and the law punishes those who do not respect private property. In order to eliminate private property, all you have to do is repeal property laws. What does it mean to "own" a car, for example? It means that if someone tries to use that car without your permission, you can call the police to punish them and return your car to you. When a person has private property over an object, that means the person in question has exclusive rights to use that object, which means that anyone who tries to use it without the person's permission will be punished by some central authority (e.g. the state). If the central authority stops enforcing private property, then private property is abolished. So, again, all you have to do in order to abolish private property is to repeal property law. There is no force involved. On the contrary, private property is abolished by restraining force. Property law says "the government will use force to protect your property". When you abolish that, the government can no longer use force to protect your property.

Of course, if you simply repeal property law without putting anything in its place, then you will end up with chaos. If the government stops using force to protect property, then anyone can take as much as they can from anyone else, and society collapses into a "law of the jungle"-type situation. For this reason, communists do not simply want to abolish private property. They want to put something else - communal property - in its place.

Your mistake, Gaytan, lies in assuming that in order to change the property status of an object (to change it from being private property to being communal property), someone has to physically do something to the object itself, like taking it away from its former owner. That is not true. All you have to do is change some things written on some pieces of paper somewhere. This may result in the object itself being used in a different way, or it may not. For example, say you own an average American house and a car, and communism gets instituted tomorrow. What happens to your house and car? Absolutely nothing. You can still use them just like before; the only difference is that property law has changed, but the law doesn't come in until two or more people have a dispute to solve. So nothing changes for you until someone comes and asks to use your car for a few hours. Under a system of private property, you can make final decisions on who gets to use your car. Under the new system of communal property, the ultimate decision rests with your community. If you believe their decision to be unjust, you can take them to court. What happens next depends on the exact laws that are in place in this communist society (there can be great variation among different kinds of communal property laws, just like there is great variation among private property laws). -- Nikodemos 20:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how you define "communist". Anti-communism often does not apply to anarchism, although the Red Scare could apply to both. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism has nothing to do with Christianity or Christian communism. Anarchists are entirely against work which is completely incompatible to Christianity. Christianity and anarchism also disagree on the need for order and government in a society. I don't think any mention of Anarchism should be in this article. I removed it already. We have a hard enough time trying to agree on edits that really do have an impact on this article, we don't need to make it harder than it already is. (Gaytan 15:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

You are generalising your opponents again. There Christian anarchists, and it is a misconception to declare that anarchists are "against work". They are against human rulers, not work. After all, a principle of anarchism is "anarchy is order!". Please do not remove it. As to your response that "voluntary communism is not communism", there is also the assertion that non-voluntary communism is not communism at all. Communism is part of the larger communalist movement, as well as socialist, as well as libertarian socialists. I think it's simply because of systemic bias that you associate Marxists with communism, but Marxist-Leninism does not adhere to the true principles of communism at all. Anarchism does not mean lack of order, nor lack of government, but rather the dissolution of the state. A state is different from a government.

Don't try to separate Marxism, Maoism, Leninism, Stalinism from communism. These were all legitimate non-voluntary communist movements who destroyed free will. The voluntary communism your are defending here is relatively new in this day and age compared to these more well known branches of communism. You argue for anarchistic communism, which you interpret as ideal communism. But that is not what a Marxist would call ideal communism. I generally denounce non-voluntary forms of communism, since this is how communism has been defined throughout the 20th century. But I also see non-voluntary communism as unreal and impossible for man to institute on his own. (Gaytan 16:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

No, these were not legitimate movements. This is why the schism in the communist movement took place in the first place. The anarchists rejected an authoritarian transitionary government, while the authoritarians advocated one was necessary. Libertarian socialists especially do not see any attempts to institute a government as advocated by Leninism to be legitimate. The anarchists do not see any of the so-called movements of Mao, or Pol-Pot, or Stalin as "legitimate", This is precisely why the Spanish Civil War occurred, and why the anarchists fought so hard against the Soviets, and eventually most were imprisoned or defeated. Movements like the Paris Commune, or that seen by Emma Goldman, as well as participants like George Orwell (who fought on the anarchist side) is what is espoused. But worldly defeats does not mean a defeat of an ideology. Sorry, it is a misconception that authoritarian forms of so-called "communism" is how it has been defined throughout the 19th century. In contrast, those with actual political science knowledge would know that there has been an intense and fiery debate (as there always have been in the theological community itself) on how communism is defined. Just because the masses have been pounded by the 1950s American media of how McCarthy defined communism does not mean that it is the true definition. Even a Marxist recognises that a stateless society that is voluntary is ideal, and that things like secret police are to be abhorred (see council communism). 22:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The critical mistake you are making is assuming abolishing private property means doing it by force. There can be collective pressure, but it is not taking it away by force nor violating any rights. Communism is just a more extreme form of communalism, although communalism was invented later. "Please assume good faith, and please stop being so adversarial. From the communalism article: "The term "communalism" is often used instead of "communism" as a way to denote those communal societies that are not based on Marxism." This is the same way how "libertarianism" is being used to distinguish it from "liberalism". I really could say "communalism" when I mean "true/classical communism", "voluntary communism" (communism was originally anarchist, and the Marxists hijacked the term), but then I'd be on the euphemism treadmill. By creating positive incentives to give up private property, as well as negative incentives which keep order, one can create a culture opposed to private property, although individual rights are maintained. I have the right to swear at you, but I really don't see the point. However, I may invoke that right if someone accuses me of using a swear word, or being slanderous, when I was making constructive criticism, because the term can be abused. In the same way, this is how a culture suspicious of private property can exist, but refusal to submit to a scam or a hijacking strongman can be invoked. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and capitalism

OK. I know this one is really going to get you Christian communists going. But this one is also based on W. Cleon Skousen's book, The Naked Communist. It is legitimate. But I know you don't like it. It doesn't fit your philosophy. Well there it is. Same rules apply as in the free will section. I did not include the entire biblical reference, due to Nikodemos remarks. But what do you expect? The Christian communist argument is completely founded on two biblical references in Acts that are misinterpreted anyways. The only way to challenge that is to refer to other biblical references, but to do it using legitimate books, article, and other media. Again, the article is nowhere near a size that calls for separating it into two articles. (Gaytan 16:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

Please assume good faith, and please stop being so adversarial. It is legitimate, but again, it exactly depends on which communism you mean. Almost all the anti-communist literature assumes that communism is a highly coercive system that infringes upon individual rights, and you say that voluntary communism is not called communism, but "communalism". Firstly, "communalism" is just a wider branch, or at least, a euphemism for actual communism. The only coercion is pressure upon others to produce, and to lend peer support, because of things like growth theory. It does not forcibly take away the products of labour, and at worst, is suspicious or expels (excommunication, if you wish) those who hoard wealth, or acts suspicious, a manner akin to shunning or ostracism (we should avoid evil anyway), but welcome those who are willing to repent. It does not forcibly take away the products of their labour, but pressure itself creates order (see anarchist law) while remaining voluntary.

Excommunication for not sharing one's wealth appears to be much more than just pressure. I agree that at some point, after the Second Coming of Christ, we will all live in a communal society, where the people will share their wealth freely, not by force. And Christ will inspire the poeple by His Spirit to encourage the people to spread their wealth; He will not pressure them to do so. The difference between many anti-communists Christians and Communist Christians is that Christian communists believe that they can institute this kind of society in their own power, the power of mankind; this is impossible. While many people today may be willing to lead such communal lives, it can at most only achieve the building up of small communal societies. It cannot be done on such a large-scale as to encompass all of humanity or an entire nation. This can only occure when Jesus Christ returns. And even then, it will only occur because Christ will have already destroyed all the wicked who would not be willing to lead such lives. The probationary time of all humanity will have ended. During that probationary period on earth, all people will have had their chance to repent, using their free will. After that time is over, they will have decided for themselves, using their own free will, that destruction would be their end. Thus, Free Will, is kept intact.

I will leave your reference to Anarchism on the page. I see it as too much trouble to try to remove it. Unless of course others agree that it degrades the flow of this article. (Gaytan 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

Yes, but not everyone manages to get to heaven. Christian communists are not trying to achieve a society on their own merit, but rather dislike the attitudes of the present society, and the worldly attitude of money. Shunning is a voluntary act done by other individuals (ie. individuals have the right to withdraw the comforts of the products of their labour to an individual who won't labour themselves, although people might try to reform them). It is precisely because the power of human rulers is flawed. It can be done as communal societies, but communal societies that do not recognise a "nation". Christianity does not take place within the superficial concept of nationality, or ethnicity, or region. It spreads everywhere. Therefore, a Christian community grows likewise, without regard for political boundaries, because political boundaries are *superficial*. It can take place both as a commune-sized society or one that is rapidly growing, or a collection of such communities. No, it cannot encompass a whole nation, because it does not try to take over nation. Rather, it tries to change as many lives as possible. Excommunication was only an extreme example, basically it does not mean that people are forced to give up the products of their labour wantonly. Just as we might try to make drug addicts rehabilitate, we might not give them 50 dollars at the start because there is a high chance of misuse. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Gaytan, I urge you to stop being so confrontational. When have I not edited this article with a fair regard for your views and arguments? Yes, of course we have different political views, but we are both editing the article for the purpose of improving it, and, if you will remember, we are both Christians.

Please read my comments further above. Also, please note that you are making an important assumption in talking about communism and force: You assume that people own private wealth first, and then they are forced to share their wealth. This may (or may not) happen in the few years of transition to a communist society, but it will not happen once communism has been established. After all, a person born in communism never had any private wealth in the first place. They are not forced to give up anything - they grow up in a society where everything is already shared. They would have to use force themselves if they wanted to take away part of that shared wealth and keep it for themselves. A transition from capitalism to communism involves no more or less force than a transition from communism to capitalism. If force is what concerns you, then you are concerned with the transition from one system to another, not with any system in itself. -- Nikodemos 22:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The transition issue is exactly what anti-communist Christians so greatly fear. Communist Christians like you all, appear to breeze over the transitional period but this is the period that is so critical in establishing a communist society. While I focus on the transition, you focus on the Utopia that communism tries to create after the transition. That is all fine and good, but you cannot get to this communist Utopia without figuring out how to get people to lovingly share their wealth. Anti-communist Christians point to Christ for this; we believe He and His Spirit are the only way that people will lovingly share their property; government can not pressure, force, or deceive the people into doing this, that would not be Christian-like. And, like I said already, Christ will do this only after the wicked have been destroyed. Those remaining will have the heart capable of forming this type of society. Natalinasmpf clearly advocates a anarchistic communism. So I understand how proponents of that ideology can argue that their communism will maintain free will. On the other hand, Marxism/Leninism promotes the idea that a strong central government must be in place to introduce communism into society; this is where free will is thrown out and trampled upon.

Nikodemos gives the example of a car above. If the law on propert is changed, the use of the car would then be controlled by the community. You conveniently forget to mention that the individual's free will has been overrun by the will of the community. If I own a car and communal property laws are instituted today, I can have my car borrowed from me in order to lend to someone else without my permission. The law in my mind is private property. I will have had my free will overruled by the community. Anyone who was happy with the law of private property will be forced to share his property against his will. There is no way around this. It is not as easy as just changing the writing on some paper like Nikodemos said. This will cause battles, especially in places like the USA and even Mexico, where private property is revered by the people. I believe that communism can only be instituted by force, or revolution, just as Marx said. I vehemently oppose Marx and his philosophy, but if communism really excites you, revolution is the only way to go. You know, Marx did say that the last capitalist must be hung by the rope he manufactured. Aside from this, productivity will greatly decline as well, since individuals will now realize that you can get something for nothing. Just look at welfare beneficiaries all over the world. In the USA, I have firsthand knowledge of this due to my property rental business and, shameful to admit, family members who abuse the system.

So now, I ask both of you a cut and dry question. How can this type of society be implemented successfully without discarding free will? Please describe in detail the transition process for both of your views. Don't give me that discussion on how great this type of society can and will be. Tell me how communists plan to get there without robbing free will. My point is that by man alone (anarchist communism, Marxism, Leninism, govermental legislation), the general, free, all-encompassing sharing of wealth is not possible without destroying free will. Perhaps one of you can enlighten me.

And Nikodemos, don't threaten edit to my work. If you have a good reason to edit my work than do it. But I will make sure that it was done properly and fairly. (Gaytan 15:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

But now you have majoritarianism; and that's different issue. Christian communists reject a lot of Marxist-Leninism, if not all. Christian communists are progressive, aiming to recruit people to change their ways, a little as a time, just as the best way to convert people is not by taking over a state and forcing everyone to convert, or crashing planes into buildings in order to terrorize the population into submission, but through wilful conversion. After all, it is a well known fable that persuasion is better than force. Furthermore, you may have your so-called private property, but then, the community still has a right to withdraw their support of you, or exclude you from benefits, if they perceive you to be non-cooperative. Of course, allowing oneself to eat with thieves and criminals (as Jesus did), in order to influence them, or to change their ways does not mean letting their ways permeate or pervert a higher way. Anyone who was happy with the law of private property can leave. After all, they do not feel like sharing their part in God's community, so why should we force it upon them? True communism is instituted by conversion. You see, if the majority of a government decides not to enforce private property, (ie. by quitting, or refusing to govern), then that is a passive act. The government is not forcing it upon them, they just refuse to act. In essence, the state has been dissolved, presumably to be replaced by a new, and better order. But even besides that, if the majority of a society decided not to support an institution, then the minority who did support that institution will have to break away if they want that institution still. If the entire government resigned, you cannot force them to go back to their posts - that would be the ultimate violation of free will. Transition is to be achieved by conversion, and living out the Christian way of life, bit by bit. In any case, Christian communism is an ideal to be worked towards. For example, until we die we cannot be as righteous as Christ, but we still have to imitate Him. Similarly, we may never achieve a perfectly stateless society until He returns, but we can cast off what is in our ability. After all, we can form communities within ourselves, and perform outside transactions still by money, but increasingly our internal transactions without money become more and more, and the external transactions with money become less and less, as the community expands. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I am a realist. You guys are obviously thinking with your head in the clouds. We have so much evil in this world, it is ridiculous. A small, communal society may work initially, but it will not survive, and it definitely will not grow much unless God is at the center of it; in my opinion, this will not happen until the 2nd Coming of Christ. Look at the history we have put up on this article so far. None of the communities who tried to establish communal living and sharing of property ever prospered. Whether you agree with these nations'specific politics or not, China, Cuba, USSR, Korea and others, acommunist utopia was never achieved. It is unreal to believe this can happen by man's power alone. These communist countries have only persectuted their own people, as can be seen by a study of their own history. Again, I am a realist. Look at the USA for example, how many people claim to be Christian? I believe more than 80% claim to be adherents to this faith. How many of them are actually active in their faith (I would define this by how many people actually pick up a Bible and seriously read it at least a couple times a week and pray daily)? I would go so far as to say it is as low as 5-10% of the nation (this is base off a view of everyone I come into contact with on a daily basis). In Europe it is even worse. Try this experiment yourselves where you live and honestly tell me how many people you com into contact with are actively practicing Christianity? Active Christians in Europe are despised and treated as idiotic, religious zealots. There is not one Western nation with leaders who will dare mention God in any speech; something that was so common not long ago. You cannot remove the blame from Christians for this. We have let this happen. We have voted for politicians who seek power and "filthy lucre" rather than statesman who put God first. This is our fault. And God will hold our nations accountable. Prior to the Second Coming, His wrath will be upon us. We have allowed faithless and wicked souls to lead us. We must change our governments. We must find righteous, God-fearing men to lead us. You Christian communists believe that the people can effectively change our society's; I believe we must have leaders who will lead righteously. This is what George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison had in mind when they established the Constitution of the USA. A republican (not the republican party in the USA today) form of government, where good men would be elected by the people to represent the people. I believe government is absolutely necessary in God's plan. After all, Jesus Christ will esablish His own kingdom, which He will reign over (as described in this article). We need good leaders. I disagree completely with anarchists; the people need good role models, they need good government. Jesus will have a government and we should try to mold our own governments after the pattern of His future Millenial government, to prepare for His coming.

If the government fails to act in protecting private property, due to a change in propert laws, the effects will be very problematic. In the USA and Mexico for example, a majority of the people would prefer to fight for their property, if the government chose to no longer protect their right in doing so. These people will not just wake up one morning and decide to give their property to the community; this is not realistic. And because the government passively removed protection of private property from their laws, looters and thieves would no longer have fear of incarceration. The people would no longer have no recourse to follow should they have their property stolen. Riots would result. Anarchy would prevail. Mobs would arise. Order would disintegrate. Murder rates would skyrocket. This is the logical consequence of passively removing property laws. Laws preventing robbery would be necessary, but how can a communist government institute such laws if private property does not exist? Could property be declared private until the community has decided to make it communal? Your method of passively withdrawing government from protecting private property does not yet appear to provide a method that can be used to entice men to share their wealth without neglecting their free will and that will maintain order. An effective transition to a communist form of government requires force or discarding of free will.

Can you guys also quit playing with words? First I discussed free will and its position with respect to communism. Then it you all preferred that I discuss free will as it applies to the transition to communism. Now you're telling me I am talking about majoritarianism. Make up your minds. Quit changing the argument. I pin you all down and then you try to change the argument by a play on words. All you have to do is define a realistic method by which a society can be effectively transitioned into a communist society without trampling upon free will. You have not yet done this. All you do is speak glowingly of a communist utopia but you provide no realistic means to bring that about. Just like the socialists in the USA; they try to bring about socialistic legislation without any realistic justification for it. (Gaytan 15:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

You are using logical fallacy again. Firstly, it is not I have been changing the discussion. You told me yourself to discuss how to implement communism, and thus you changed the discussion yourself. When I said "this is majoritarianism", I am identifying a principle that we are discussing, such that "this effect is not unique to communism, and has a long history of elements for and against". Clearly, I am not the one playing with words, but it appears someone is unfamiliar with them...(majoritarianism is a basic political science principle). I am not changing the argument, camarade. You think I speak glowingly but that is your intepretation after you decided our answers are unsatisfactory because you changed the discussion again. Your sudden ad hominem use of socialists in the US shows your clear use prejudice, partiality and partisanship in your argument. The fact that you can think that the Bible advocates capitalism is one thing, but have you ever thought to think about what God would want? To maximise talent to serve him; to glorify in general. Now, is not the best way to do that is by working to support each other? After all, a gift economy puts incentive on the individual to maximise potential (creating new talents), but capitalism does not concentrate on how the wealth is to be used.

There is no need to insult intelligence here, is there? Whether you believe there are socialists in the US or not, does not make a difference to me. I see religion being attacked in the US by anyone and everyone, and the Democratic party, which espouses many socialists agenda items, seems to be a major force in this effort. Although Republicans aren't doing much better, they don't seem to be directing the onslaught against religion. But I digress...

About what God wants... I agree with you, somewhat. He does want us to become as perfect as possible and I don;t believe we should limit ourselves. In achieving perfection, we should seek to do so as Christ exemplified it; we should do so by working together and helping others. In this we do not disagree.

But I believe that my handicap in this is that I am up against several different communist philosophers here on Wikipedia. One espouses an anarchistic approach to communism, which in my opinion, seems to be that one form of communism which may somewhat respect free will but is anti-government(Natalinasmpf); another seems to belittle free will (Nikodemos); and another which I cannot yet tell what he thinks of free will (Mister Mister). My point is that we cannot just get up one morning and decide to change a nation's entire economy; it takes gentle persuasion and it can only begin on a small-scale in order to protect free will. In recent communist history, this has been neglected and often replaced by brute force. This is what I, and many anti-communists, fear. But if a communist movement could preserve free will during all phases of transition and begin the transition at the community level, establish or mold a government that would protect the people and sustain their free will, then, I believe, it will have a better chance of acceptance in general. But it will still have much trouble removing the stigma of atheism and oppresiveness associated with the word communism. (Gaytan 17:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

I am not anti-government. I do not believe in stable, human, government, for stable governments are dry and repressive (a constantly dynamic government is an ideal). I am thus, anti-statist. I am not sure they are different communist philosophies as they are different emphases - they are certainly different from Marxism and Stalinism altogether. I cannot decide to wake up one morning and decide to change an economy — but I can very much persuade the majority of the population to, naturally not overnight. And yes, it must start small scale to preserve the anti-abuse culture.

One of the past problems with the Church was its interference in politics, and setting up one Christian kingdom against another, etc. which was naturally beginning to look more and more Machiavellian, and not Christian at all. Did Christianity convert the Roman Empire or was it vice versa? This too, about growing pains can be reflected in any Christian endeavour which grows, and becomes insensitive to irs root base. An anarchist movement, that does not pomp itself, therefore preserves Christian attitude. In recent communist history, may I add, the Bolsheviks decided to use a "cure-all" snake-oil approach to the economy. Their practices were not in fact communist - they used the term "communism" as just another name for their socialist movement, as did many at the time. Furthermore, in its endeavour to recruit a power base it neglected the ulterior motives of its participants. I advocate mostly progressivism, with separatism (which would require revolution) if it is needed/there is an oppurtunity. A separatist movement is not repressive, much like the Jewish revolutionaries were the local majority. But one must also consider that sovereignty is superficial - the only point to separate is to be free of the control of a government that is inferior when the capabilities of the community have outgrown its ability to provide for a Christian community. The stigma of atheism and oppression is to be ignored. It is just semantics. If things were really bad, you could call yourself a communalist or whatever, but I do not believe in assenting to the euphemism treadmill. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is much evil in the world. But that does not mean we bow down to it. When evil dictates we worship idols or starve, then we starve. Or cast into flames. I care not for what evil dictates. It does not prevent me from assuming there will be people with good faith. So what, if it's a small communal society? That is what God has granted. At the same time, we must not close our eyes to the possibility of a particularly large one, either. Personally I think its the materialistic Western culture that blinds you. Perfection will not occur till the Second Coming; but that does not mean we should not strive towards it. Again, do we not work towards ideals that we cannot achieve on Earth? But that is because we don't intend to complete our works on Earth.

Many of the communities set up prospered, until it succumbed to bullying external threats. Anarchist Spain thrived until Fascist Franco decided to intervene. The Paris Commune similarly thrived but they dared not touch the gold in the Central Bank of Paris for fear that it would incur the nations' wrath, but the Versailles government ended up using the money against them (it could have been used to the Commune's defense). In each of these, a lesson was learnt, in how to implement the next trial, the next attempt. To use an idiom, as Rome as not built in one day...furthermore, much of the time, the large jealous nations decided to wipe out these movements in their infancy before they could become a sizable hindrance. The authoritarian movements were allies because they didn't actually do anything truely radical. We can have role models, but not leaders with political power, for they are infallible. After all, was not Israel oppressed with a yoke when they cried for a king? Those call themselves Christians, but are not actually, would not join a society based on Christian economics, because they do not have the faith to do it. Actual converts, on the other hand, have taken the voluntary decision. Social change is the only way, because republicanism has chosen to be ineffective by itself, although much better than a monarchy. Was it only a few hundred years ago that everyone accused republicans of being heretical or faithless because they dared support the idea of a Republic which so went against the idea of the divine right of kings? Passively dissolving the government sends the nation into a constitutional crisis, and the people are forced to reorganise themselves; of which does not violate free will (just like a farmer is forced to resow crops when bad weather comes, etc.) The dissolution of a government would occur when the majority of the population no longer support the current state of society. You assume that dissolution would suddenly occur while most people were still capitalist. Also, defining "most" can also vary. For example, it could be a small town, country, or state, that decides to break away from a nation (one does not have to convert an entire nation, just most of a society be it local or national), as long as it is willing to guard itself. After all, such a case means the people have decided to absolve the current social contract and come up with a new one. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hutterites

I don't know enough about them to add it myself, or even to know if I should, but the article Hutterite seems to suggest the Hutterites are Christian commun(al)ists. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I could look into it and find an appropriate way to mention them, if indeed they should be mentioned here at all. Hutterite itself links to Christian anarchism in the See also section, but not here. Angr/talk 00:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Christian Left vs. Christian Right or Communist Christian vs. Anti-communist Christians

Does it seem that we have created some terms that mean the same thing? I believe communist Christian is the same as the Christian left and anti-communist Christian is the Christian right. But if we tried to change these terms somehow, then we may need to consolidate this page to the Christian left page. Have you guys thought about this? Just wondering. (Gaytan 19:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC))

They are by no means the same thing. Christian communism is a very small section of the Christian left, and anti-communist Christians do not necessarily have to be right-wing. -- Nikodemos 23:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, a Christian leftist and a Christian communist are not the same thing. Of course, a Christian leftist might be a supporter of capitalism and against Christian communism, while still actively campaigning for other goals promoted by the Left. We really need to just stop generalizing everything here, and we need to stop talking about the 'socialist bias' (or sometimes the 'conservative bias') that is supposedly demonstrated within these pages, and actually attempt to be objective about this. I may not agree with what Protest Warrior does, but I'm not about to let people use the article to insert unsourced criticism and personal attacks. And likewise, we cannot let our own biases turn this article into a propaganda piece for the movement or a two minutes hate against it. Also, Gaytan, while I do respect you, and this isn't something that happens all the time per se, you really need to stop using this talk page to accuse socialists of trying to promote bias and views similar to undemocratic regimes such as Soviet Russia and China, as well as accusing leftists in the United States of being socialists. It really adds nothing to the article and it makes people angry, so for the sake of keeping things productive I'd suggest that you just try not to do it.

As such, I really don't think this new section is what we need. I may be wrong here, but it seems to just be taking a single point involving one person's interpretation and kind of running with it/expanding it into something that's a bit biased, and fairly uninformative and repetitive. Now, an informative (and slightly more concise, though still substantial) section dealing with opposition to Christian communism, that would work. Also, might it be fair to add to the article the idea that the debate over free will can also be applied to the Christian Right's support, in the case of some members of the movement, of banning by law certain actions which they see as immoral (same-sex marriage, pornography, blasphemy, etc.)? Give your thoughts.

Mister Mister 11:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am trying really hard not too bluntly attack Christian communist philosophy. If you believe I am doing this, then you clearly have the right to correct me. But like I said, all you have to do is look at how biased Wikipedia is towards socialism and against conservatism to get an idea of where I am coming from. Just compare the amount of criticism in the Christian right article to that found in the Christian left article. Clearly, I am working against a huge left-wing machine here in Wikipedia. But in all fairness, please correct me if I am adding material on this page that appears too biased, although I may put up a fight.

About the Christian right infringing upon free will; I believe you have some truth there. But first, allow me to describe what my belief is about the purpose of law. Many conservatives, not all of course, will agree that laws are needed to protect the people. That's it. Any law made to force someone do good, has clearly gone too far. This is the position taken by Cleon Skousen and like-minded small government conservatives. This is my position against socialism. Now, what do like-minded conservatives say about laws concerning evil deeds? Going by the rule laid out above, evil acts should be permitted and not outlawed unless the acts hurt someone; in that case a law is need to protect the people. So, taking your examples one by one, laws that try to abolish blasphemy are clearly against free will and do nothing to protect the people. Most small government conservatives will agree that blasphemy should not be outlawed. Of course, I am sure there our some theocratic conservatives out there who will disagree with that.

Now, pornography. If this were outlawed completely, then free will would be removed again. But if it was freely accessible to everyone and anyone, then you would be trampling upon the free will of parents who are trying to keep such evils away from their children. So, most like-minded conservatives, I believe, would agree that pornography should not be outlawed, but it should be strictly controlled by law so that only adults who choose to entertain that lifestyle can do so. If laws were limited to this, we would be protecting those who need to be protected (children) and leaving the free will of adults intact.

Now, same-sex marriage. This is much more controversial so I will not attempt to speak for any group of conservatives. My position on this, as explained above, is to protect the people. Some may take this as far as saying that, to protect the people against God's wrath, we should not legalize same-sex marriage. Others will say that by not legalizing same-sex marriage, the free will of homosexual individuals will be destroyed. My view is based solely on protection and compromise: protection of the children, the family, and the nation and culture as a whole; and compromising with homosexuals in order for them to practice their free will. I say that same-sex partners should be allowed to practice their lifestyles as they please. I also believe that laws should be created or changed in order to afford these couple some rights that they currently may not possess. But I do not believe we should call their relationship a marriage and it should not be considered equal to a marriage. To protect families and children, marriages should remain between man and a woman. Families are falling apart due to divorce, sexual misdeeds, and lack of communication. Will legalization of same-sex marriage decrease or increase the divorce rate? Can the upbringing of a child raised by two good men or two good women be compared to the upbringing of a child raised by a good man and a good woman? 50 years ago, same sex marriage was not even dreamed of. 50 years from now will groups like NAMBLA attempt to legalize marriage of adult men to boys? Should nations accept polygamist lifestyles as equal to monogamous marriage, as is currently done in parts of Canada? And what about bestiality?

What about the effect on same-sex marriage and birth rate? Would it be wise for a nation to legalize a practice that would put it on a road to extinction? Would it be wise for a culture to legalize a practice that would put it on a road to extinction? I think not.

Where should the line be drawn between free will and protection of individuals? I believe it must be drawn in a manner prohibiting legalization of same-sex marriage in order to protect children, families, and a nation and its culture. But I do believe that same-sex couple should be afforded some rights as a civil union. This would be my compromise.

Of course, not all conservatives would agree with all of my points, especially not the theocratic ones (although I do consider myself actively involved in religion and God-fearing). You guys may believe I am a theocrat; but I am not that extreme.

About including this topic into the article... add it if you wish. But please be sure to distinguish between theocratic conservatives and those of us, conservatives, who tend to not impose our beliefs on others by force. (Gaytan 17:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

...You know, I could point out that you just did the exact same thing (though not as badly, really) that I said was making things very confrontational, once again. But, I'm just going to leave it at that before I get too angry and make a complete jerk out of myself. Forget it. You guys can just work on this article yourselves for now. This is only getting me incredibly pissed off and I have better things to be doing with my time.

Also, Prohint: While I don't think that homosexuality is moral in a Biblical/spiritual sense, I have had significant personal problems dealing with my own bisexuality, and I get a bit tired of people and their gay-bashing. God, while I am fairly confident that he is not a fan of homosexuality itself, loves gay people and gets tired of fundamentalists treating them like monsters. Gays are not a bunch of nutty pedophiles who act like the Fab Five. It's a stereotype that I get really tried of. Also, using a slippery slope, as in "If we allow/do x, then x, x and x will follow" isn't really a great argument, and it kind of offends a lot of gay individuals when they're compared to child molesters and people who have sex with animals. But I digress, I need to just be quiet for now. Everyone, just... try to improve this article. If anyone wants to add material discussing what I outlined in my previous paragraph, feel free to do so. Just try to keep it as balanced as possible, please.

Mister Mister 23:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Born in communism, transition to communism, and free will

Nikodemos, I really believe that your comments about someone being born in communism never having the experience of private property should not be included in the article. This section of the article is about controversies, and most of these controversies are brought up by anti-communist Christians. These Christians somewhat agree with the idea of a sharing of wealth after the second coming. This utopia is a valid Christian belief, so the argument is not about someone being born into this utopia. The dispute arises when debating the transition of a society from capitalism to communism. In this scenario, no one is born without ever having had experienced private property. All people will know what it is to own property individually. The controversy falls into explaining how a people will be persuaded to share their wealth unequivocally. Anti-communist Christians do not believe that this can be done and still keep free will intact. Being born into communism is not part of the controversy being discussed. Of course, free will does not have anything to do with that scenario. At that point, no one will remember what private property was and will therefore not desire it. That is why it is looked at as utopia.(Gaytan 17:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC))