ARCHIVE: Berean Todd on socialism & homosexuality

SUTG

New member
Hilarious! I used to think that even though I'm not a Christian, at least I probably agree with Todd Berean on politics and gay marriage. But, alas, we even disagree there, since I am against Socialism and against gay marriage. Furthermore, I do not think that homosexuality is 'a sin', or morally wrong.

Todd Berean, I know there must be something that we agree on. Do you think that baseball is boring? Or maybe that California Pizza is terrible? I know, I know....maybe we both drink our coffee with cream but without sugar. That could be it...
 

Scott

New member
Berean Todd said:
Yes I do mean at a governmental level. I don't think that the Bible really clearly supports ANY economic system or setup in my opinion. To try and make it is to stretch and twist the text, but there are guidelines. I'm not advocating paying for women who want to never work and churn out kids 12 at a time to eat up more welfare.

If you can work, you should work, that is Biblical. But I do support things like national health care, helps for the poor, increased minimum wage, etc. Yes, I do think that such things are with Biblical principles, and would classify myself therefore as a socialist.

Berean Todd has it right. The only examples we have in the NT of "Christian" economic models is close to socialism. I'd say it's actually communism in the most literal sense. But "communism" implies dictatorship, and we Christians are in a monarchy with Christ as king... but our economic model from the NT is definitely commune in nature. Both the early church sharing possessions and the Widows List are excellent examples.

Capitalism is a very, very self centered model. It is fair in one sense, in that it protects private property and efforts. But, it makes it very hard for those in the lower strata of our system to come upwards. It keeps the rich, rich.. and allows for a middle class, but it's a "fight it out" kind of system.

Remember, we're mostly talking about economic models that humans can influence. We Christians are under a different rule. We are told to submit to our earthly governments, but we are called to share, give, serve, and sacrifice.

It's a difficult notion to try and compare God's economic principles to earthly models. It's almost an apples to oranges comparison. However, I think we can try to see which earthly model fits closest to God's. But this brings up another very important issue.

Is the government responsible for social justice, or should we as individuals be responsible for social justice? Unfortunately, if anybody insists on being black and white about this, it won't work because we're dealing with sin. But, in general, if society is unable to provide justice... then the government should... even though it would be better if society did. Any model that involves people will have heaps of problems!

EDIT: I used to be a bleeding heart Republican and a extreme right winger as well. What changed my perspective. I was in Central America on a mission and was able to participate in a debate between an local and another right-wing American Christian. The contrast was thick, as were the fallacies of the American position. I am now an independent and only concerned about what God thinks, and nothing more. Much of right wing fundamentals is simply politics and not biblically based. Either that or the bible is a big book of contradictions since some fundamentalists want to burn all Homosexuals, yet Christ shows so much love and mercy. No wonder the American Church has such a bad reputation around the world - all these fundamentalists running around singing "God Bless America". Guess how the rest of the world sees this? They see Homo-hating American Christians, who want to kill anything that threatens itself praying to God to bless their superpower country. If you can't see the problem with this, I give up.
 

Scott

New member
On the homosexual front, I don't think that marriage should be redifined by the government. On the other hand, we do live in a socially contructed reality... from our societies POV. Our nation is not a Christian nation. We Christians are a minority. What right do we have to forcebly impose our morals on anybody else. We're not the Taliban. All we can do is preach God's truth and pray for God to make things change. Other than that, we are not, nor should we be, in a position to dictate. Don't worry, God wins in the end. We just need to be faithful to tell others about Him.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
SUTG said:
Hilarious! I used to think that even though I'm not a Christian, at least I probably agree with Todd Berean on politics and gay marriage. But, alas, we even disagree there, since I am against Socialism and against gay marriage. Furthermore, I do not think that homosexuality is 'a sin', or morally wrong.

Todd Berean, I know there must be something that we agree on. Do you think that baseball is boring? Or maybe that California Pizza is terrible? I know, I know....maybe we both drink our coffee with cream but without sugar. That could be it...
Why are you against gay marriage? I don't mean to imply that only religious people would ever be against it, but it's probably safe to say the majority of people who are against gay marriage are not atheist/agnostic. So I'm just curious.
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Scott said:
Berean Todd has it right. The only examples we have in the NT of "Christian" economic models is close to socialism. I'd say it's actually communism in the most literal sense. But "communism" implies dictatorship, and we Christians are in a monarchy with Christ as king... but our economic model from the NT is definitely commune in nature. Both the early church sharing possessions and the Widows List are excellent examples.
Maybe you would like to respond to post #13 as if it were directed towards you.
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Scott said:
On the homosexual front, I don't think that marriage should be redifined by the government. On the other hand, we do live in a socially contructed reality... from our societies POV. Our nation is not a Christian nation. We Christians are a minority. What right do we have to forcebly impose our morals on anybody else.
As I had said to Berean Todd, "Doesn't your proposal for governments to emulate Peter's church and to enforce these 'Biblical principles' fly in the face of what you've said here?"


Should we do away with laws against murder, rape and theft? Those are moral laws too.

Do you believe that abortion should remain legal?
 

Scott

New member
Turbo said:
As I had said to Berean Todd, "Doesn't your proposal for governments to emulate Peter's church and to enforce these 'Biblical principles' fly in the face of what you've said here?"

Of course not. I clearly said that I DO NOT think that marriage should be redifined. Why do you think this contradicts "Peter's church", as you call it?

BTW, It wasn't "Peter's church". Peter called himself a "fellow elder". And, if anybody could biblically be called the leader of the church in Jerusalem, it would be James.

Turbo said:
Should we do away with laws against murder, rape and theft? Those are moral laws too.

We were talking about economic models as well as the question of where we stand on Homosexual marriage. What does your question have to do with these??? I see no connection. Socialism does not mean "do away with laws". If anything, it means more laws.

If you didn't know this, you probably should not be debating this thread.

Turbo said:
Do you believe that abortion should remain legal?

Please re-read my original comments again. You obviously didn't read them well. Thus, I will not answer this question since I have clearly stated my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Scott said:
We were talking about economic models as well as the question of where we stand on Homosexual marriage. What do your question have to do with these??? I see no connection. Socialism does not mean "do away with laws".
You said, "What right do we have to forcebly impose our morals on anybody else."

I assume from the context of your statement that by that you mean that we should not strive to have laws forbidding homosexuals from "marrying" someone of the same gender. I'm wondering if you are consistent in your stance: Do you also think that we should not strive to outlaw abortion? Should we just shrug if people propose to make murder, theft, or rape legal? Who are we to forcibly impose our morals on rapists? Who are you to advocate that the government force me to give my money to "the needy"?


You are misrespresenting not only me, but also the entire debate.
Feel free to set me straight if I've misunderstood you. I'm pretty much assuming that your stance is the same as Berean Todd's, because regarding socialism, you said that he "has it right" and regarding homosexual marriage you basically paraphrased his stance.

Are you disagreeing with what I have SAID?
Yes. For starters, you said, "Berean Todd has it right." He doesn't. I explained why in post #13.

Also, you are wrong to suggest that our laws should not be founded on morality. Your support for laws against murder, rape, and theft contradict that stance.
 

Scott

New member
Turbo said:
Maybe you would like to respond to post #13 as if it were directed towards you.

I read your thread and don't agree with your assumpions. Paul didn't create the Widow's List. You will find this in the early church, Jerusalem. Also, All the churches in the region were financially supporting the church in Jerusalem.

I'm afraid I will be dropping out of this debate. I don't think you have the requisite knowledge to do it justice.
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Scott, you keep replying to what I say about homosexual marriage as though I were talking about socialism and the early church, and vice versa. To avoid confusion, maybe we should tackle these issues one at a time. Which would you like to start with?
 

erinmarie

New member
Scott said:
I'm afraid I will be dropping out of this debate. I don't think you have the requisite knowledge to do it justice.


Sorry to interrupt..but WOW.

I've never heard anyone talk to Tom that way. :noway:
 

Scott

New member
Turbo said:
Also, you are wrong to suggest that our laws should not be founded on morality. Your support for laws against murder, rape, and theft contradict that stance.

I thought I explained my position well. I'll try and restate it.

I have an opinion as a Christian, BUT I am not in the majority. If I and the rest of my minority were to somehow force the majority to do what I think is right... Do you think this is right?

That's about as simple as I can state it. If you don't understand, I will take the blame for not being able to properly explain it.
 

Scott

New member
erinmarie said:
Sorry to interrupt..but WOW.

I've never heard anyone talk to Tom that way. :noway:

Why not, he misrepresented what I clearly stated. It's as if he's arguing against a fictitious person. I don't get it. For example, he implied that Socialism is lawless. How can you debate somebody who doesn't understand the subject?

It's a waste of time.

EDIT: It was pretty pointed I admit, however, I have no patience for debate that will obviously go nowhere.
 
Last edited:

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Scott said:
I read your thread and don't agree with your assumpions. Paul didn't create the Widow's List. You will find this in the early church, Jerusalem.
I pointed out how Peter's and Paul's instructions were mutually exclusive. How can a widow rely on her family rather than the church to support her if her family has turned over all that they owned to the church?

Also, All the churches in the region were financially supporting the church in Jerusalem.
Yeah, Paul took collections for them because they were starving. Communism does not work long-term.

I'm afraid I will be dropping out of this debate.
So be it.
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Scott said:
I thought I explained my position well. I'll try and restate it.

I have an opinion as a Christian, BUT I am not in the majority. If I and the rest of my minority were to somehow force the majority to do what I think is right... Do you think this is right?
YES! What is popular does not determine what is right. God has revealed what should and should not be criminal, and He didn't give people the option to vote on it.

If 90% of people in a country want to be allowed to slaughter their children if they so choose, should the government allow them? Is it wrong for the 10% who know right from wrong to urge the government to prosecute parents who murder their children?
 

Scott

New member
OK, I couldn't resist. Somebody here has a high opinion of you so I'll assume they know something I don't. But please don't make connections were they don't exist.

Scott said:
I have an opinion as a Christian, BUT I am not in the majority. If I and the rest of my minority were to somehow force the majority to do what I think is right... Do you think this is right?
Turbo said:

Seems you believe, like the Taliban, that forced conversion to moral laws is the way to go. Not even God himself operates this way.

Turbo said:
What is popular does not determine what is right. God has revealed what should and should not be criminal, and He didn't give people the option to vote on it.

I COMPLETELY agree that "What is popular does not determine what is right" (99.9% of Christians will agree with this - as will anybody with an opinion at all). But, we can't change that since we are a minority AND we live in a democracy. The government isn't concerned at all with God's laws. What do you propose?

Seems to me that God has chosen to give these evil people free will to do as they want, essentially digging a grave for themselves and also ushering in His end game.

Turbo said:
If 90% of people in a country want to be allowed to slaughter their children if they so choose, should the government allow them? Is it wrong for the 10% who know right from wrong to urge the government to prosecute parents who murder their children?

Important point for you to consider... "90% of the people in our country" IS THE GOVERNMENT and they make the laws for our country.

EDIT: You have made another disconnect here. I'm not sure why you keep doing this. Anyhow, nowhere in any of these posts has anybody said that it would be "wrong to urge the government" to do what is right. Come on Tom. Quit making these assumptions. It's a pain.

Maybe I'm just not understanding your argument. If you're saying we should voice our opinion despite popular vote/opinion - Of course. I agree. I'm discussing the idea of imposing NOT opposing. Would Jesus impose His law on an unbelieving world, or would he let it go to Hell in a handbasket? Actually, He provided a way of salvation, but it's still going to Hell in a handbasket.
 
Last edited:

Scott

New member
Turbo said:
Communism does not work long-term.

It will in heaven. It does on earth when His children are letting the Holy Spirit guide them. Or are you going to argue that it's impossible for a group of Christians to be led by the Holy Spirit in a successfull commune arangement? Please be clear here, I'd like to know.

According to your logic, the communal living in the early church did not work in the long-term. If you agree with this, please tell me why you think this.
 

Scott

New member
Turbo said:
I pointed out how Peter's and Paul's instructions were mutually exclusive. How can a widow rely on her family rather than the church to support her if her family has turned over all that they owned to the church?

You are not understanding what was happening in these verses. They did not "turn over all that they owned to the church". Some were selling there property and giving the proceeds to the church. The apostles were redistributing it to those in need. It was also voluntary. Not compulsory. Ananias and his wife didn't have to do anything. Instead, they lied about selling their land and were judged by God. Don't assume that because many did it that ALL did it. Also don't assume that they gave everything, it doesn't say that. It does say that nobody had any needs.

Besides, do you have a problem with this. It actually happened. It was a good thing. Are you opposed to it?

So, you have AGAIN.. set up a false argument. Your scenario here would never happen.

Turbo said:
Yeah, Paul took collections for them because they were starving.

So Paul was promoting a kind of Christian socialism. Just because it's not like modern socialism doesn't mean it wasn't socialistic in concept. So, even you Tom... when you contribute to a fund that helps those who are needy, you are participating in a form of socialism. Remember, the whole time.. .I've been talking about concepts, not political parties or groups. So be careful how you represent this.
 
Last edited:

Scott

New member
Some person named Wamba just gave me a neg rep thingy and called me a "moron" for treating a mod this way. I apologize for being harsh with Tom here, but you have to read these posts to see the logic. It's pretty troubleing that one can be so misrepresented. I should have just stopped posting to Tom. Anyhow, mods and admins don't deserve any special treatment. I'm sure they would agree.

EDIT: Wamba, Tom, and the others are all Enyartians aren't they? Man, I fogot how it is. Nothing's changed.
 
Top