Social Justice Jesus

[Drew]

Two wolves and Lamb are hungry, so they all take a vote to decide what to eat:

Wolf one votes to eat the lamb, wolf two also votes to eat the lamb. The lamb votes to eat grass. Did the lamb "voluntarily" choose to be eaten simply because it cast a vote?

Not the point. The fact is that in a democracy - and I believe I have been clear I am a fan of democracy - it is simply the nature of the beast that some people will be "forced" to do what they do not want to do.

And, of course, there are many people who vote for lower taxes, their party loses, and, yes, they are of course "forced" to pay taxes.

What alternative would you suggest? That each person simply gives the government the amount of money he or she thinks is "just"? I suggest the problem with this is clear.

The simple fact is this: In a society, there are certain things that should be done corporately - building roads, equiping a military, building an energy infrastructiure. And, as I have argued elsewhere, it also makes sense for people to act corporately to help the poor through taxation.

There is no way to undertake all these necessarily corportate (communal) actions without "forcing" each of us to contribute to some causes we don't like.

Well, welcome to democracy. I suggest what you are implying is entirely unrealistic - you seem to think we should do away with a system where people are "forced" to pay taxes for things they do not believe in. Well, that option is simply not realistic, as I would suggest should be clear.

 

[Drew]

I have "rigged" nothing. You've made specific assertions, it is not unreasonable to request specific Scripture when claiming a specific concept is Biblical.

No. Like others do in this and other settings you implicitly (or explicitly) insist that if "there is not a verse supporting doing X, we are not Biblically instructed to do X". This, of course, functions to exclude a vast swathe of more subtle Biblical arguments. And when you do this, you rig the game - you decide, without justification, that only a special class of Biblical arguments can be brought forward to support positions.

I would have hoped that the church would have moved beyond this "Sunday School" level of thinking. We had this kind of discussion when we discussed smoking. People seemed to think that since there is no "thou shalt not smoke" command, that we therefore have no basis to conclude that smoking is sin.

Please.

It only takes a little reflection to conclude that smoking is sin despite the absence of a "verse" about it.

Same thing here - we know that Jesus believes in helping the poor. And we know He declared that He was initiating a kingdom. For the umpteenth time: to express certain values - such as care for the poor - in the context of an overall programme of announcing a kingdom, implies that we are to seek to organize all elements of our society to embody such principles.

Like so many, you are, whether you realize it or not, shrinking down the "kingdom' claim, arbitrarily deciding that the scope of that kingdom is limited to our "personal lives". That is simply not how a kingdom works!!

When Caesar was installed as "king", would He say "The values and principles I stand for only apply to your 'personal lives', otherwise you may do as you please."

Of course not. To initiate a kingdom is to call for the transformation of a society at all levels - not just the personal.

 

[Zinc]

What alternative would you suggest?

That we should vote directly on what social programs should be supported, and what measures should be in place to require responsible behaviour.

For example, if someone already has a load of kids, and they are living on benefits, I don't think they should be having any more. I think the state should prevent them. I don't know if I could get a majority of people signed up for that but if we could...

 

[Zinc]

It only takes a little reflection to conclude that smoking is sin despite the absence of a "verse" about it.

What about the occasional cigar if it's something you enjoy?

Is that much different to sometimes enjoying some "unhealthy" food? Gluttony may be a "sin" but does that mean people should NEVER have any "food treats"?

 

[jasoncran]

i hate alcohol but to say that we should all avoid it because one drink of it is a sin isnt biblical.

the bible doesnt condone drunkards but drinking in moderation isnt condemned and the person who does or doesnt do that is the only one can decide that.

some cant handle beer etc. others can.should i say that no christian should go to the beach or for woman wear a bikini as i have to control my eyes? some can go there and enjoy the ocean and not sin at all.

 

[Drew]

What about the occasional cigar if it's something you enjoy?

Is that much different to sometimes enjoying some "unhealthy" food? Gluttony may be a "sin" but does that mean people should NEVER have any "food treats"?

Fair enough - I agree with you on this.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Not the point. The fact is that in a democracy - and I believe I have been clear I am a fan of democracy - it is simply the nature of the beast that some people will be "forced" to do what they do not want to do.

And, of course, there are many people who vote for lower taxes, their party loses, and, yes, they are of course "forced" to pay taxes.

Exactly, thank you for finally admitting that taxation is not volluntary. As far as the USA is concerned, the United States is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic that utilizes representative democracy.

What alternative would you suggest? That each person simply gives the government the amount of money he or she thinks is "just"? I suggest the problem with this is clear.

No. I suggest that as you demonstrated above, taxation is invollutary therefore it is not analogous to volluntary acts such as charity. Rendering to Caesar is not the same as rendering to God.

The simple fact is this: In a society, there are certain things that should be done corporately - building roads, equiping a military, building an energy infrastructiure. And, as I have argued elsewhere, it also makes sense for people to act corporately to help the poor through taxation.

There is no way to undertake all these necessarily corportate (communal) actions without "forcing" each of us to contribute to some causes we don't like.

Well, welcome to democracy. I suggest what you are implying is entirely unrealistic - you seem to think we should do away with a system where people are "forced" to pay taxes for things they do not believe in. Well, that option is simply not realistic, as I would suggest should be clear.

Again, thank you for admitting that your idea of "charity" consists of coercion to a certain degree. As far as the US is concerned, military, infrastructure, ect are necessary functions of the government, as outined by our founding documents. Wealth redistribution is not.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

No. Like others do in this and other settings you implicitly (or explicitly) insist that if "there is not a verse supporting doing X, we are not Biblically instructed to do X". This, of course, functions to exclude a vast swathe of more subtle Biblical arguments. And when you do this, you rig the game - you decide, without justification, that only a special class of Biblical arguments can be brought forward to support positions.

No. I am requesting how Jesus instructing that we serve others as He served us, "good news to the poor", "give up all your possesions and follow me", ect. is not a command for all disciples of Christ regardless of wealth status but, an obligation for a specific group of people (the rich) to another specific group (the poor).

As demonstrated in the OP, Jesus commended a poor widow for giving everything she had to live on. "Rigging the game" entails being presented with specific Scriptures to back up an interpretation (charity is an obligation of all believers regardless of wealth status), one claims that Jesus still taught wealth redistribution from the "rich to the "poor" in spite of the fact that He did not do so in the most prime opportunity because He had a habit of not addressing relavent teachings. That when confronted with Jesus' clear cut teachings on marriage, one claims that divorce/remarriage is "context-specific". When confronted with abortion, it is "not exactly analogous".

we know that Jesus believes in helping the poor. And we know He declared that He was initiating a kingdom. For the umpteenth time: to express certain values - such as care for the poor - in the context of an overall programme of announcing a kingdom, implies that we are to seek to organize all elements of our society to embody such principles.

Like so many, you are, whether you realize it or not, shrinking down the "kingdom' claim, arbitrarily deciding that the scope of that kingdom is limited to our "personal lives". That is simply not how a kingdom works!!

When Caesar was installed as "king", would He say "The values and principles I stand for only apply to your 'personal lives', otherwise you may do as you please."

Of course not. To initiate a kingdom is to call for the transformation of a society at all levels - not just the personal.

The only one arbitrarily choosing what teachings of Christ should be enforced by the state for the glory of His Kingdom is you. If "subtle" teaching such as wealth redistribution are to be initiated, then so should explicit laws concerning sexual relations. Otherwise you are shrikning down the scope His Kingdom to personal life, not the total transformation of society at all levels.

 

[Zinc]

I have already fully addressed these questions. Several times in fact. You may not like my answers, but they are there and they clearly address your questions.

I will raise this possiblity: You are either unable, or unwilling, to absorb answers to this question that are not "Sunday School" answers - answers that appeal to a "verse", as it were.

Things are not always this simple. The argument I have presented is one based on a reasonable inference from the broad content of Jesus' teachings.

Looking at a different thread, I notice you did give me an answer before. I didn't see it because your reply came after a number of weeks and I had stopped looking at the thread.