Christian Communism

Why is it that the "Religious Right" are so often fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, whereas "communism is godless", when Christianity is, in fact, an ideology that supports communism?

The notion that the Bible says that people are obligated, morally, altruistically, to give to the needy is not a new one. It was prevalent in the United States through the 1800's, with the Social Gospel movement. The Social Gospel movement and the so-called Progressive Age were the true ideological predecessors to Marx and Lenin; stated religion is but a superficiality. They are both rooted in the same: the notion that it is bad for any one person to have more than another person, particularly when someone else is needy... regardless of whether or not aforementioned needy individual is squandering their charity, or has earned their status of indebtedness.

Regardless, Leviticus 25:35-38 says: "If one [...] becomes poor [...] help him [...] so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God [...] You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God." That is to say: if someone needs something, and you don't give it to them, God's going to do something nasty to you.

"Well," you might say, "that's the Old Testament God we're talking about, there. The New Testament God is quite different." Actually, not so. The New Testament, following Jesus and his followers, has more flagrant depictions of collectivistic tendencies than any other part of the Bible.

Let's look at Acts. Acts 4:32-35 says, "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had [...] there were no needy persons among them [...] the money [...] was distributed to anyone as he had need." Would you believe it that the old communist mantra, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" can be traced to the Bible? But it's right there, in Acts 4:35. "[T]he money [...] was distributed to anyone as he had need."

What this really means is that no one should own anything (Communism), everyone should share everything (Communism), and anyone who needs something should get it (Communism).

In Mark 12:31, Jesus declares that it is the decree of God that one ought to value others as much as themselves. The notion that one is morally obligated to care for others as much as one's own self is more or less a metaphysical impossibility. Matthew 19:21 features Jesus instructing a man to sell all that he owned and live as a follower of his, so he could "have treasure in heaven". Is the idea that possession is bad logically followed by that if it's bad to have possessions in life, it would be okay to have possessions in heaven, after death? Matthew 19:23-24 depict Jesus's famous adage about that a rich man can no easier go to heaven than a camel through the eye of a needle. This firmly establishes that wealth is bad, right?

So, we have Acts telling us that we should distribute our wealth to those who need it, and Leviticus threatening us to do so, Mark telling us that we are to love each other as ourselves, and Matthew telling us that wealth is immoral. These are all the basic tenets of communism: redistribution of wealth, selflessness, and the immorality of property. It's no wonder this Christian nation is falling into socialism. Are we going to suffer the same fate as the other nations that tried to implement this system?