ARCHIVE: Berean Todd on socialism & homosexuality
- Thread starter Turbo
- Start date
Wessex Man
New member
Socialism is about the workers owning the means of production,it has little to do with giving to the poor,just ending capitalist exploitation through the ownership of the means of produtcion.(or any other kind of exploitation.)
The world of the NT is a pre-capitalist one,with plenty of artisans and farmers who owned their own means of production.
Scott
New member
NuGnostic said:
Yes, this is correct. Like the Social Security system, it's controlled by the government and supposedly owned by all of us, it's purpose is to decrease the poverty frequently suffered by elderly, through a social collection of funds. But there are also flavors of socialism and I'm discussing the primary purpose of it, which is to even out the classes (economically). So, when we give to the needy, it is a form of socialism. Only in the sense that the purpose of giving is to subtract from one class to add to a lower one. Thus the connection to commune (Communist and Socialist were freely interchangeable when the concept became poplar in Europe). Like a Kibutz (sp?). These are successfully operated communal farms.
BTW, I am not a Socialist, nor a Communist since these have political definitions. I am for (within the Church) freely giving and sharing, the equality of classes, and the Kingship of Jesus... whatever that is called, that's what I am.
EDIT: Your definition is modern and assumes a government (Nationalised) ownership of private property (assuming that the government is respresented by "the people"). Again, at the core of socialism is a commune system, so individuals giving to the needy is a simple form of socialism like government giving to the needy is a modern bureaucratic form. The only difference is scope and responsibility/control.
Scott, earlier you asked, "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?"
I answered, "YES!" but it really depends on a couple of things:
1) Is what you think is right actually right?
2) What do you mean by "force"?
In the context of your question, we were talking about whether Christians should support disallowing homosexual "marriage" even if the majority want to allow it.
In that case, the person who thinks people should not be allowed to marry is right, and the "forcing" is done via influencing governing authorities to pass or maintain good laws that do not allow for homosexual "marriage" while getting rid of or rejecting bad laws that do.
Do you think the majority of people are or are not in rebellion against God?
We should NOT teach people that it is wrong to impose a good law that the majority doesn't like. We should NOT teach people that it is wrong to impose laws that are based on morality since the most fundamental laws such as "do not murder" and "do not steal" are based on morality.
Should people have had that attitude toward the Nazis sixty-some years ago? Seems to me that God has chosen to give the Nazis free will to do as they want, essentially digging a grave for themselves and also ushering in His end game. Is that what you would have said had you lived in 1940?
Where did I say that we should "forcebly impose our morals on anybody else" through means other than influencing the government to pass and enforce good laws? I assumed that what you said was relevant to the topic at hand.
Please clear something up: Do you advocate that merely the church should operate in a socialistic/communistic fashion, or that it should be imposed by the government?
I have been assuming that you would have the government run the nation as a whole in a socialistic fashion because that's whatBerean Todd said, and you said that he was right (generally).
Peter's converts sold everything they owned including their houses and land and turned it over to the apostles (Acts 4:34-35). The apostles chose seven men to administrate their commune. But one of these administrators, Philip, ended up owning his own home later (Acts 21:8-9). Decades later, John makes reference to brethren owning homes (2 John 1:10). They must not have stuck with their communist way of life for the long-term.
I participate in socialism when the government forces me to pay taxes so that it can distribute my money to others'.
I answered, "YES!" but it really depends on a couple of things:
1) Is what you think is right actually right?
2) What do you mean by "force"?
In the context of your question, we were talking about whether Christians should support disallowing homosexual "marriage" even if the majority want to allow it.
In that case, the person who thinks people should not be allowed to marry is right, and the "forcing" is done via influencing governing authorities to pass or maintain good laws that do not allow for homosexual "marriage" while getting rid of or rejecting bad laws that do.
Good. :thumb:
Do you think the majority of people are or are not in rebellion against God?
Do you think democracy is a good thing or a bad thing?
We should use whatever influence we have to teach people (including those in positions of authority) right from wrong and what should and should not be criminal according to God. In order to do so, we must first figure out God's opinion on these matters.
We should NOT teach people that it is wrong to impose a good law that the majority doesn't like. We should NOT teach people that it is wrong to impose laws that are based on morality since the most fundamental laws such as "do not murder" and "do not steal" are based on morality.
They also dig graves for their victims. Should that be tolerated?
Should people have had that attitude toward the Nazis sixty-some years ago? Seems to me that God has chosen to give the Nazis free will to do as they want, essentially digging a grave for themselves and also ushering in His end game. Is that what you would have said had you lived in 1940?
Well, you said, "What right do we have to forcebly impose our morals on anybody else?"
Where did I say that we should "forcebly impose our morals on anybody else" through means other than influencing the government to pass and enforce good laws? I assumed that what you said was relevant to the topic at hand.
Please clear something up: Do you advocate that merely the church should operate in a socialistic/communistic fashion, or that it should be imposed by the government?
I have been assuming that you would have the government run the nation as a whole in a socialistic fashion because that's what
I do not believe that the Holy Spirit guides the church toward communism today, nor do I believe the Holy Spirit intended for Peter's church to operate that way long-term. There was a specific reason that God wanted Peter's church to operate that way, and that was to maximize their ability to evangelize in the short-term so that Israel might repent and Christ might return quickly (Acts 3:19-2). Sadly, Israel continued to reject their risen Messiah and persecuted His followers. Therefore God cut off Israel and grafted in the Gentiles.
Paul took collections to support the saints of Jerusalem who had become poor (Romans 15:26-27).
Peter's converts sold everything they owned including their houses and land and turned it over to the apostles (Acts 4:34-35). The apostles chose seven men to administrate their commune. But one of these administrators, Philip, ended up owning his own home later (Acts 21:8-9). Decades later, John makes reference to brethren owning homes (2 John 1:10). They must not have stuck with their communist way of life for the long-term.
No, he didn't. Paul taught that giving should be done freely out of a cheerful heart, not by force or out of obligation.
Wrong. Charity is not socialism.
I participate in socialism when the government forces me to pay taxes so that it can distribute my money to others'.
So have I.
Then why are you arguing against me instead ofScott said:
Please clarify: Should the government force you and I to pay taxes so that it can give that money to the needy?
That's what
No, the difference is whether the giving is done freely or out of coercion.
The Berean
Well-known member
SUTG,SUTG said:
Read my sig below...
Scott
New member
I will only answer things I disagree with or need to clarify (for the sake of length). Assume I agree on all others.
We may have simply been misunderstanding each other. I can't find anything I disagree with. It helps that you have clarified "force". I agree that we as Christians should do everything we can legally do to disallow anti-Christian values and laws. We should rightly represent truth at every opportunity.
In our posts, we have been mixing up the terms "support" and "forced". They are totally different. For example, we should NOT do what the Gay Rights people are trying to do: hijack the majority opinion with their minority opinion. Instead, if we are the minority, we should be heard, try to influence as best we can, and pray. What else can we do?
It seemed to me that you were saying it was OK to "force" (I wondered how you thought we would do this) our views on an immoral majority.
The majority of people are in rebellion.
Excellent question. First, I think it is the best form of government around (man-made that is). The best for of government is the idealistic form of Christ as Head of the Chruch... and all that implies (thus the commune idea). We don't see that now days. So, democracy is the best we can muster, however.. it's not perfect. It breaks down when the majority wants to sin - because it is basically mob rules. Hitler's Nazi Party was democratically elected into their Senate (whatever they called it). So, it's not perfect.
Let me just state what my core concern here is. Every person should follow God of their own choice. Not the choice of others. However, people are blessed when they follow God's ways, whether they are submitted to Him or not. But, it would be a crime to force somebody to "submit" to God, but it's wrong to sit back and let evil happen. Does that clear up my POV???
I guess I don't completely understand your question. Sometimes good people suffer because of the actions of the evil. God allows this. We should try to influence government to do right, but it's not always possible. God allowed the Nazis to get their way for a time, until he helped the Allies kick their butts.
I 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?"
You said "YES!". You answered this in the context of the conversation, right?
I didn't know where you pulled Berean Todd's statement from. It was responding generally only to the quote you posted. My view is that a very Conservative model of Socialism (somewhere between Capitalism and Socialism) seems like the best. I'm not wholehartedly sold on this. My stronger view is the the Church should operate in a socialistic/commune fashion. I don't think that the government should impose this on people, becuase it needs to be governed by the Holy Spirit.
OK, I think it is very possible today, but Capitalism has become the most desired form of economics. This point doesn't need to be debated. You may be right, I don't think either of us can prove this particular point.
You are making a false assumption. I am not advocating socialism as "forced". And yes, see my post to nuGnostic (sp?) about socialism. At it's core, it is about equalizing classes. Think of it more as a commune. Don't add modern nationalized versions of it into the defintion.
Yes, it's better "socialism" when we freely give to needy, rather than have the government decide how, where, when for us.
But you have been adding modern views of socialism to the debate. I'm talking about a very simple form. Maybe we should drop the term "socialism" and call it "Christian commune" or something. That would be better.
I have to go home now. Thanks for responding.
Turbo said:
We may have simply been misunderstanding each other. I can't find anything I disagree with. It helps that you have clarified "force". I agree that we as Christians should do everything we can legally do to disallow anti-Christian values and laws. We should rightly represent truth at every opportunity.
In our posts, we have been mixing up the terms "support" and "forced". They are totally different. For example, we should NOT do what the Gay Rights people are trying to do: hijack the majority opinion with their minority opinion. Instead, if we are the minority, we should be heard, try to influence as best we can, and pray. What else can we do?
It seemed to me that you were saying it was OK to "force" (I wondered how you thought we would do this) our views on an immoral majority.
Turbo said:
The majority of people are in rebellion.
Turbo said:
Excellent question. First, I think it is the best form of government around (man-made that is). The best for of government is the idealistic form of Christ as Head of the Chruch... and all that implies (thus the commune idea). We don't see that now days. So, democracy is the best we can muster, however.. it's not perfect. It breaks down when the majority wants to sin - because it is basically mob rules. Hitler's Nazi Party was democratically elected into their Senate (whatever they called it). So, it's not perfect.
Turbo said:
Let me just state what my core concern here is. Every person should follow God of their own choice. Not the choice of others. However, people are blessed when they follow God's ways, whether they are submitted to Him or not. But, it would be a crime to force somebody to "submit" to God, but it's wrong to sit back and let evil happen. Does that clear up my POV???
Turbo said:
I guess I don't completely understand your question. Sometimes good people suffer because of the actions of the evil. God allows this. We should try to influence government to do right, but it's not always possible. God allowed the Nazis to get their way for a time, until he helped the Allies kick their butts.
Turbo said:
I 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?"
You said "YES!". You answered this in the context of the conversation, right?
Turbo said:
I didn't know where you pulled Berean Todd's statement from. It was responding generally only to the quote you posted. My view is that a very Conservative model of Socialism (somewhere between Capitalism and Socialism) seems like the best. I'm not wholehartedly sold on this. My stronger view is the the Church should operate in a socialistic/commune fashion. I don't think that the government should impose this on people, becuase it needs to be governed by the Holy Spirit.
Turbo said:
OK, I think it is very possible today, but Capitalism has become the most desired form of economics. This point doesn't need to be debated. You may be right, I don't think either of us can prove this particular point.
Turbo said:
You are making a false assumption. I am not advocating socialism as "forced". And yes, see my post to nuGnostic (sp?) about socialism. At it's core, it is about equalizing classes. Think of it more as a commune. Don't add modern nationalized versions of it into the defintion.
Turbo said:
Yes, it's better "socialism" when we freely give to needy, rather than have the government decide how, where, when for us.
But you have been adding modern views of socialism to the debate. I'm talking about a very simple form. Maybe we should drop the term "socialism" and call it "Christian commune" or something. That would be better.
I have to go home now. Thanks for responding.
Wessex Man
New member
Not really,socialism is all about ending capitalist exploitation as seen by using the LTV,it means in practice the workers own the means of production.
This is more a right-wing definition,it should be noted that the welfare state,taxation or anything like that are not socialists,despite Turbo's pleas.
Communist is different,it is a stateless,classless society,which is best summed up by using the saying "from each according to his ability,to each according to his need."
I'm not sure what you mean,I'm an anarchist and am repulsed by Marxist-leninism,it's as bad as capitalism.
I personally think true socialism is not possible with a state.
You also seem to have mixed up communism and socialism,it could be argued that charity is a communistic,but not socialistic.If you replace the word socialist with communistic(not true communism,but going that way.) in that paragraph,yop'd be closer to the truth.
Btw when communists use the word private property they mean the means of production,ie that used to make money and which can be exploitative,they don't mean possessions like your toothbrush(usually.).
Wessex Man
New member
Scott you should be warned discussing Socialism with fundies usually leads to semantics like Socialism is theft etc,which not only is BS,it ignores the theft of labour which makes capitalism work.
Wessex Man
New member
Scott if you want to learn about Socialism(and anarchism.) read this.
http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/
http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/
Morphy
New member
The worst problem with socialists, like NuGnazi, is when they talk about socialism they talk about an abstract concept which has never existed in the world. Thus when they talk about profits they talk about profits which have never existed!!! But when you tell them about REAL socialism they say: oh, this is not a REAL socialism, it's something else; just like NuGnazi says "communism is not communism but a state capitalism..."NuGnostic said:
The second worst problem with socialists is they are ALWAYS lying. They hate the truth and nothing repulses them as much as the truth.NuGnostic said:
NuGnazi says leninism is as bad as capitalism. So he probably thinks Americans are starving to death, there are a lot of gulags in Alaska, everyone who disagrees with Bush is persecuted, thrown in jail and shot in the head, as well as his family, private property doesn't exist and so on.
If he ever becomes a state leader he will create another cruel, bestial, bloody regime and several years later NuNuGnazis will say: NO!!! NuGnazi was a right winger and conservative because he created a state capitalism!NuGnostic said:
:kookoo:
Inquisitor
New member
NuGnostic said:
I take it you're a punk rock fan, too, then?
Wessex Man
New member
See Scott this is why you don't talk about socialism with the far-right.Mussolini said:
I an anarchist am being called a Nazi, it really is beyond all belief.
Firstly up yours,I really don't appreciate being called a mass murderer,you piece of slime.
Secondly why would an anarchist lead a state? Are you brain dead?
Wessex Man
New member
I prefer Jimi Hendrix,Led Zeppelin etc.Inquisitor said:
Wessex Man
New member
I recommend you read these.Delmar said:
First Proudhon's What is Property? It has a long preface but you can just skip that.
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbi...xts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all
Here's a good and readable article on exploitation theories.
http://orion.it.luc.edu/~dschwei/demdialectic.htm
And the Anarchist faq describes it all very well.
http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/