I can't imagine an argument that this passage can be interpreted in any other way than as a blueprint for socialism. Yet, for all my years in the Bible Belt, these conservative fundamentalists have never been able to explain the paradox.
BibleGateway.com Acts 4:31-37
But what strikes me is the passages that follow.
Really, I'm just wondering how Christians rationalize consumerism in a capitalistic society when they purport such piousness over their own observance of their religiosity.
As for the teachings themselves, the first portion is a rational approach toward forming a healthy society. I just felt that the penalty for non-compliance was a bit stiff. The implication of the story is that he was spiritually ill with greed (which DEFINES American Christianity) and more in need of compassion, understanding, and teaching than that needed of the voluntarily participating social members who understand the advantages of working toward the good of all.
BibleGateway.com Acts 4:31-37
31And when they had prayed, the place in which they were assembled was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they continued to speak the Word of God with freedom and boldness and courage.
32Now the company of believers was of one heart and soul, and not one of them claimed that anything which he possessed was [exclusively] his own, but everything they had was in common and for the use of all.
33And with great strength and ability and power the apostles delivered their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace (loving-kindness and favor and goodwill) rested richly upon them all.
34Nor was there a destitute or needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses proceeded to sell them, and one by one they brought (gave back) the amount received from the sales
35And laid it at the feet of the apostles (special messengers). Then distribution was made according as anyone had need.
36Now Joseph, a Levite and native of Cyprus who was surnamed Barnabas by the apostles, which interpreted means Son of Encouragement,
37Sold a field which belonged to him and brought the sum of money and laid it at the feet of the apostles.
But what strikes me is the passages that follow.
1BUT A certain man named Ananias with his wife Sapphira sold a piece of property,I don't even know HOW to classify that. Stalinist? Mafioso? Vice Lords?
2And with his wife's knowledge and connivance he kept back and wrongfully appropriated some of the proceeds, bringing only a part and putting it at the feet of the apostles.
3But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart that you should lie to and attempt to deceive the Holy Spirit, and should [in violation of your promise] withdraw secretly and appropriate to your own use part of the price from the sale of the land?
4As long as it remained unsold, was it not still your own? And [even] after it was sold, was not [the money] at your disposal and under your control? Why then, is it that you have proposed and purposed in your heart to do this thing? [How could you have the heart to do such a deed?] You have not [simply] lied to men [playing false and showing yourself utterly deceitful] but to God.
5Upon hearing these words, Ananias fell down and died. And great dread and terror took possession of all who heard of it.
6And the young men arose and wrapped up [the body] and carried it out and buried it.
Really, I'm just wondering how Christians rationalize consumerism in a capitalistic society when they purport such piousness over their own observance of their religiosity.
As for the teachings themselves, the first portion is a rational approach toward forming a healthy society. I just felt that the penalty for non-compliance was a bit stiff. The implication of the story is that he was spiritually ill with greed (which DEFINES American Christianity) and more in need of compassion, understanding, and teaching than that needed of the voluntarily participating social members who understand the advantages of working toward the good of all.
