Tristan and Pelican,

If you support a Government system which compulsorily acquires and distributes wealth, that is fine. What I am objecting to is the fact that you are comparing this to the situation described in the book of Acts chapters 2 and 4. You appear to be claiming that marxist redistribution of wealth is a Christian principle because it is described in the book of Acts.

As I have explained, this is not a valid comparison because what happened in Acts occured voluntarily and was based on brotherly love and concern among a small community; what happens in marxist systems is compelled and in most cases resented by those whose goods are acquired by government. Superficially it may look the same but the realities are polar opposites.

You can argue for compulsory redistribution all you want; just don't try to use Acts 2-4 as your platform. Acts 2-4 has nothing whatsoever to do with Marxism.

Jereth

Tristan, you’re right, the early Jerusalem church looks rather like a commune. I’d offer a few observations, though.

First, although Acts says “Neither was there any among them that lacked”, other evidence suggests the Jerusalem church was desperately poor (Acts 6:1, 2 Corinthians 8:4), to the point of being financially dependent or even parasitic. The Jerusalem leadership demanded that Paul and his followers support the Jerusalem church financially (Galatians 2:10), and collections for “the poor” in Jerusalem are a recurring motif in Paul’s ministry (1 Corinthians 16:1-4, 2 Corinthians 9:12, Romans 15:26-28). Paul praises the impoverished Macedonians for subsidising Jerusalem (2 Corinthians 8:1-4). The Jerusalem model was not sustainable or successful economically.

Second, though founded on principles of equality, it’s clear that a hierarchy of status and function quickly evolved in Jerusalem. The disciples soon devolved menial jobs to others (Acts 6:2-4). Leadership of the Jerusalem group fell not to Peter or one of the disciples but to Jesus’ brother James, who apparently subordinated Peter (Galatians 2:11-14).

Third, despite the idealised picture in Acts 4, in Acts 5 we see something very different - the mysterious deaths of Ananias and Sapphira for failing to disclose and share all their assets. At the very least this indicates that not everyone was happy to share everything. At worst, it suggests a threat of death hung over those who failed to comply. Hardly cheerful and unanimous compliance, anyway.

Fourth, this is not the only mode of ministry and community we find in the early church. Many of Paul’s early communities were house churches, often sponsored by the comparatively wealthy (Acts 8:8, 16:14-15). Paul himself “did not eat anyone’s bread without paying for it,” and worked rather than accepting his (due) keep from the community (2 Thessalonians 3:7-10)

The communistic Jerusalem community was a bold socio-religious experiment, but ultimately an unsuccessful one. It was unsustainably impoverished, divided, soon gave up on its egalitarian ideals, failed in its attempts to direct the growth if the early Christian movement, and soon faded from history leaving little lasting influence on the church or society.

Rhian, there were dozens of social and spirit-seeking experiments at the time: Gnosticism, Monatanism, Docetism, Arianism, etc, etc

Biblical Christianity?
The only direct rules I know are the ten commitments.
Whatever Bill Muehlenberg derives as rules from quoting the Bible to explain why Green politics opposes Christian ethics is as sensible as to explain why females should cover their faces based on the Koran.

There are much stronger reasons why not to vote for certain Australian parties.

Lets look at history instead of religion:

1950 Robert Menzies (Liberal) involved Australia in Korea on request of the UN Safety Council.

1962 Robert Menzies (Liberals) sent Australians for no good reasons to Vietnam.

2001 John Howard (Coalition) sent troops to Afghanistan to fight Al-Qaeda and to catch Bin-Laden. Now suddenly the goals have changed. Now we fight the Taliban while Osama nearly is forgotten.

2003 John Howard (Coalition) repeated the axes of evil slogans of best mate Bush like a parrot and sent Australian troops to Iraq without a UN mandate and based on lies: Bush and Howard’s crusade (holy war) against terror!

What is more evil, to drag Australia into wars, cause soldiers and excessive civilian death, or being pro-abortion or to accept gay’s rights?

Is it ethic to tell Australians that defending our country in Iraq and Afghanistan is required to make Australia a safer place? This argument is complete rubbish.

Is it responsible to send soldiers into terrible wars and let them suffer later for life from horrible dreams and stress?

There are more ethical reasons for not voting for the Coalition than the Greens!

The Liberals are responsible to have initiated the cause for all life's lost in these wars.

These wars have probably cost Australians more than ALP ever has wasted with alleged economic miss-management.

Liberals and Nationals seem more to be a Coalition of Evil than a Coalition of Christian Ethics?

And unfortunately the ALP has not the guts to end our involvement in wars.

The only party which would support the idea to get out of the wars or better not to get involved in it are the Greens.

Chris

Jereth
"If you support a Government system which compulsorily acquires and distributes wealth, that is fine"

That is called taxation not Marxism. As an Atheist I have not used any biblical text as my platform.

Taxation is what supports our health system, fire and police, roads and infrastructure.

As an atheist I have not used any biblical platform to make this argument merely an ideological one that I belive works better for human societies and ensures fairness.