The Christian Bible Supports Socialism and/or Communism

Well, I'm not sure how to continue at this point. My opponent has not made any further arguments, and I have already debated his earlier points. Let's review the original agreement from round one:"Pro will be arguing that the Bible endorses socialism and communism, and Con will be arguing that it doesn't." Let's look up the word endorse, and see what it means specifically. Endorse: to publicly or officially say that you support or approve of (someone or something): to publicly say that you like or use (a product or service) in exchange for money: to write your name on the back of (a check)http://www.merriam-webster.com...It is impossible for my opponent to prove that the Bible endorses socialism or communism because they did not exist when it was written. The Bible never publicly or officially said that it supports or approves of either of them. It did endorse some similar views. But he did not agree to argue that they have similarities, he agreed to argue that the Bible endorses socialism and communism. The problem is further compounded by the fact that socialism is not a blanket term. There are many forms of it and not all are the same. Here is the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on socialism:https://en.m.wikisource.org...If we are to use the term socialism as a blanket term, or a concept, here is the definition:Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companieshttp://www.merriam-webster.com...For this debate to be logical and coherent, we cannot pick and choose between different systems or single verses of the Bible. We can only debate it as a whole. My opponent's burden of proof was to clearly demonstrate this endorsement and he has yet to do so.Notice that the definition of socialism clearly states that major industries are owned and controlled by government rather than by individual people and companies. In the previous round I showed that the Bible prescribes charity, not government control. I would also like to point out that my opponent's opening argument demonstrates the same thing. None of the verses he provided endorsed that these charitable actions be carried out by government, and none of them endorsed the creation or formation of a government. Also, none of these verses endorse giving control of property to government. They endorse giving to the poor, and a willingness to bear one another's burdens.Ok, so I've addressed socialism. But what about communism?Communism: a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned propertyhttp://www.merriam-webster.com...This definition is even more restrictive. It clearly states that there is no privately owned property. If people don't have things which belong to them, they cannot be expected to give them to others. My opponent used 2 Corinthians 8:13-15"...as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness."How can there be abundance at one time for someone, and need at another if the government controls all property and dispenses it equally? Wouldn't it have been easier to say that you should give to the government, and they would take care of you?Next he used Luke 3:11"And he answered them, "Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.""Again, how can someone have two and the other have none if these things were controlled by a government and distributed evenly?Next we have Matthew 19:21"Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.""It clearly says, "...sell what you possess and give to the poor..."So you are to sell what you own, and give it to the poor. This would not be possible in a socialist or communist system. I could go on like this, but I think that I've made my point.Rule 3 for this debate states:"Round 5 is for closing statements."My opponent has no room left to argue my position. However, if he can show us that the Bible endorses socialism or communism within his closing statement he will have met his burden of proof and convinced me at the same time.