Social Justice Jesus

[Drummer4Christ]

Question. If no one needs to benefit from charity, why would Jesus commend the widow for giving to the point of sacrifice? Someone needs it, or it would not be important to give it.

The only one who benefits from charity is God. We are to be a living sacrifice so as to bring glory to Him. Again, if Jesus taught social justice the poor widow would have kept her coins & had wealth be distributed from the temple treasury or the rich folk present. Social justice dictates that the poor are on the receiving end, not the sacrificial end.

Question 2: if the point of charity is to sacrifice, then why the objections to giving charity through government? Those things that Christ_empowered spoke of, such as education, those are charities that we in society give each other. So why object to that if Jesus made it so clear one should not accumulate wealth, but should instead give all you have to help others?

Because rendering unto Caesar is neither charity nor sacrifice. Jesus made it plainly clear that paying taxes does not absolve one from or substitute giving back to God. When some one is hungry, do you give them something to eat? Or do you instead tell them to apply for food stamps? No one is objecting to Jesus' directive to sacrifice. The objection is to the unbiblical notion that sacrifice is an exclusive obligation for one set of people (the rich) to the exclusive benefit of another (the poor).

 

[Rhea]

I'm sorry Rhea, but have you visited every single world wide church to be able to make the statement that churches don't care if women are diagnosed with cervical cancer? My church and my pastor would care very much.

Apologies, let me re-phrase that:

Churches do not provide this. They do not provide services to determine if women have undiagnosed cervical cancer, for example. Planned parenthood does do this, and in numbers large enough to make a difference. Churches are just not doing this medical service in any numbers large enough to serve the needs of women.

This is nothing but a slanderous claim

"Slanderous"?
I admit that what I meant was that they do not care enough to provide these services. But even if it were true that I meant they din't actually care at all (that would be unreasonable for me to claim, I do know that churches claim to care for all of their congregants), even if I did intend to say that, one might ask -
IF they care about women in their congregation being safe from cervical cancer, what do they do about it?

That's an interesting question to ask, I think. Can you give examples of churches doing something about this risk for women? Planned Parenthood, of course, and all the people who work there, do, indeed, do something to show their concern. Sometimes this means working at a place that receives threats of bombs, arson, picket lines to get to work and even murder.

So what does this mean. Well, it means that Planned Parenthood has a mission that includes meeting the medical needs of millions of low income women for whom no one else is providing affordable services.

And that is the intent of my post above. A poster claimed that supporting Planned Parenthood is evil and he would never find it a charitable thing to do. And I disagree because Planned Parenthood does great good for women when no one else is doing it.

The abortions that they perform, what is it, 3% (link) of their business. So NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of their business is about helping women get affordable reproductive health care.

So you can see the argument that all those federal $ are going to abortions doesn't meet the math at all. The donations they receive are enough (more than enough) to cover that 3% of their work with no "fungibility" at work. That's just a distraction to get people to cut off the other 97% of their work.

(especially in the light of planned parenthood's infamous tax fraud/theft). Quite frankly, I expect better from someone like you.

Thank you for the compliment, I will continue to try to be the person I want to be.

I went to look for this tax fraud issue and I am not finding any reliable reports. Can you give me some search terms? All that comes up are free-republic type sites which are notorious for false allegations.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Brothers & Sister,


Let us take time during this discussion to praise God for the gifts He has graciously bestowed upon us. Let us thank Jesus for making the ultimate sacrifice for us. That He died for our sins so that we may have everlasting life in Him, for the glory of His name.Let us ask God to show us how we may provide for others. Let us petition the Holy Spirit to come upon us so we may live as Christ lived. Let us trust that the Heavenly Father will provide for us.

Though I may veheminitely disagree with some of you, I love ALL of you nonetheless. I would lay down my life for your right to express your views, not to bring glory to myself, but for the glory and honor of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour. In Him is the end of human suffering, in Him is the ability to transform the world!

Finally, let us ask God to remove the scales from our eyes, to replace our hearts of stone with hearts of flesh so we may do the will of the Father, glorify the Son, and be baptized in the Holy Spirit!

Yours in Christ,
Nick

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Apologies, let me re-phrase that:



"Slanderous"?
I admit that what I meant was that they do not care enough to provide these services. But even if it were true that I meant they din't actually care at all (that would be unreasonable for me to claim, I do know that churches claim to care for all of their congregants), even if I did intend to say that, one might ask -
IF they care about women in their congregation being safe from cervical cancer, what do they do about it?

That's an interesting question to ask, I think. Can you give examples of churches doing something about this risk for women? Planned Parenthood, of course, and all the people who work there, do, indeed, do something to show their concern. Sometimes this means working at a place that receives threats of bombs, arson, picket lines to get to work and even murder.

So what does this mean. Well, it means that Planned Parenthood has a mission that includes meeting the medical needs of millions of low income women for whom no one else is providing affordable services.

And that is the intent of my post above. A poster claimed that supporting Planned Parenthood is evil and he would never find it a charitable thing to do. And I disagree because Planned Parenthood does great good for women when no one else is doing it.

The abortions that they perform, what is it, 3% (link) of their business. So NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of their business is about helping women get affordable reproductive health care.

So you can see the argument that all those federal $ are going to abortions doesn't meet the math at all. The donations they receive are enough (more than enough) to cover that 3% of their work with no "fungibility" at work. That's just a distraction to get people to cut off the other 97% of their work.

Thank you for the compliment, I will continue to try to be the person I want to be.

I went to look for this tax fraud issue and I am not finding any reliable reports. Can you give me some search terms? All that comes up are free-republic type sites which are notorious for false allegations.

Planned Parenthood was founded by Margare Sanger. A women who advocated extermination of undesirables. She was a eugenist and a racist. I suggest you read some of her writings concerning the motivation behind birth control besides sex without consequence. Even if PP only performed one abortion every ten years and inoculated thousands of women a day, it doesn't change the fact that abortion is a sin.

Planed Parenthood is not a charity. The only "sacrifice" going there is children. It has no place in this thread.

 

[Pard]

Oh well if only 3% of their work is murder...

Rhea so based on your logic you'd be in favor of a "charity" that gave life saving medical help to the people who cannot afford it but 3% of what they did was out-right murder. Right?

97 rights doesn't make up for even 1 wrong let alone 3.

 

[Drew]

The redistribution of wealth is neither a command nor a law of God. Therefore, it is unnecessary to include it with laws that do come from God in order to shape the laws of men.

No. It is a command from God. How can you suggest otherwise?

Let's start with the Old Testament:

The LORD arises to contend,
And stands to judge the people.
<SUP class=versenum id=en-NASB-17722>14</SUP> The LORD <SUP class=xref value='(R)'>(R)</SUP>enters into judgment with the elders and princes of His people,
“It is you who have <SUP class=xref value='(S)'>(S)</SUP>devoured the vineyard;
The <SUP class=xref value='(T)'>(T)</SUP>plunder of the poor is in your houses.
<SUP class=versenum id=en-NASB-17723>15</SUP> “What do you mean by <SUP class=xref value='(U)'>(U)</SUP>crushing My people
And grinding the face of the poor?â€
Declares the Lord <SUP class=footnote value='[o]'>[o]</SUP>GOD of hosts

Now I have little doubt that those who want to believe this text does not implicitly support "re-distribution of wealth" will say that the text is not explicitly advocating such re-distribution - that it only critiques taking advantage of the poor. Well, fair enough. But I suggest that in many cases, people get rich in the first place by taking advantage of the poor. We can talk more about this if you like.

Forget about this last text if you like and consider this from Isaiah 58

Is this not the fast which I choose,
To <SUP class=xref value='(M)'>(M)</SUP>loosen the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the bands of the yoke,
And to <SUP class=xref value='(N)'>(N)</SUP>let the oppressed go free
And <SUP class=xref value='(O)'>(O)</SUP>break every yoke?
<SUP class=versenum id=en-NASB-18794>7</SUP> “Is it not to <SUP class=xref value='(P)'>(P)</SUP>divide your bread <SUP class=footnote value='[c]'>[c]</SUP>with the hungry
And <SUP class=xref value='(Q)'>(Q)</SUP>bring the homeless poor into the house;
When you see the <SUP class=xref value='(R)'>(R)</SUP>naked, to cover him;
And not to <SUP class=xref value='(S)'>(S)</SUP>hide yourself from your own flesh?
<SUP class=versenum id=en-NASB-18795>8</SUP> “Then your <SUP class=xref value='(T)'>(T)</SUP>light will break out like the dawn

How much more clear can the prophet be - it is the responsibililty of the wealthy to share with the poor. And I can predict how some of you will respond - you will say that this is an instruction that only operates at the level of the individual.

That simply does not make any sense! As already argued, what kind of person would, for example, exercize environmental stewardship personally, yet not believe that this same value should inform how we structure our society as a whole?

Or what about this kind of thinking:

1. I think it is good for me not to murder;
2. ....but I do not particularly think its important to promote and enshrine this value at the societal level.

Why do people not embrace re-distribution of wealth? I politely suggest it is because they do not want to share with the poor and want an "out". Look - if we are instructed to be generous as individuals, it only makes sense that, as a society, we collectively do the same thing.

No doubt some will engage in the patently incorrect "taxation for wealth re-distribution is 'forced' giving and the Lord wants us to give freely" line of reasoning.

This is simply not true - you vote to be taxed, knowing full well that some of that $$ goes to the poor.

 

[Drew]

God's grace is the greatest gift imaginable, so I don't see how a Christian who has the means and ability to improve his/her world could possibly justify not doing so.

I agree, and for a range of pragmatic reasons, part of this imperative involves action at the "social" level - acting collectively to ensure that the poor are cared for.

 

[Drew]

I just don't think Jesus called his followers to transform their lives without transforming their world.

I don't want to make this a "love-fest", but I am greatly encouraged that at least some believers "get" this fundamental truth. Please keep promoting this truth to so many of our fellow Christians who have bought into the "its all about me and my going to heaven when I die, and God has no interest in redeeming and transforming the broader world" line of thinkng.

The kingdom of God is here - it is about transforming our world so that "heavenly" principles are instantiated right here.

 

[Rhea]

Planned Parenthood was founded by Margare Sanger. A women who advocated extermination of undesirables. She was a eugenist and a racist.

She's also dead.
The USA was founded by mysogenists and racists who advocated slavery. By your logic we should hate today's America because of the facts of it's founding. And I'm sure you can come up with some other institutions that should be shunned because of the eugenics views of their previous leaders? The logic is flawed because it is history, not present. You punish the child for the sins of the father here.

I do not agree with all of Sanger's philosophy. I DO agree with her philosophy that birth control should never be forced on competent women. I am on the fence about our nation's laws which permit limitations on parenting for those in mentally limited conditions (Sanger agreed with our current laws).

But, in the end, she's dead. And has been dead since 1966. She has not been running the organization, nor pushing a eugenics agenda certainly since her death - and no one else at Planned Parenthood has, either.

So her views are what we would call a "Red Herring". A distraction having nothing whatsoever to do with the current mission and objectives of planned parenthood.

I suggest you read some of her writings concerning the motivation behind birth control besides sex without consequence.

I've read it. I don't agree with all of her reasons. I do agree with many - that is getting birth control into the hands of any woman who wants it,
especially the poor who cannot afford birth control through the market.

The ability to control one's fertility and family is one of the best charities we can provide.

Planed Parenthood is not a charity. The only "sacrifice" going there is children. It has no place in this thread.

It's in this thread because a poster used it as a reason why he should not contribute to governmental charity. Despite NONE of the government dollars going towards the procedures to which he objects.

NONE of the money we are talking about here via government social charity goes toward abortion. We don't need to debate it because it is not part of this equation. I wanted to make sure that was clear.

Planned Parenthood provides non-abortion medical care to women who have no other way to get it. That it what makes them a charity, that is what makes them valuable and honorable.

 

[Rhea]

Oh well if only 3% of their work is murder...

Rhea so based on your logic you'd be in favor of a "charity" that gave life saving medical help to the people who cannot afford it but 3% of what they did was out-right murder. Right?

97 rights doesn't make up for even 1 wrong let alone 3.

Knowing that we disagree on whether abortion is "murder" or not, let me say that I pay taxes that supports an American war which murders every day. I support having a military, knowing that sometimes they will do things that I consider "murder". In addition, I pay taxes that support various houses of worship, even while I know that some of that money is used to preach that children should be left to die rather than get a blood transfusion - murder, in my book.

You should know that the 3% of PP's activities involved in abortion include the post-miscarriage procedure that is identical to (and therefore counted as) "abortion". Also abortions for health or life of the woman and for conditions incompatible with life for the fetus.

But again all of this is a distracting red herring because NONE of the tax funds go to any of those services.

 

[handy]

In addition, I pay taxes that support various houses of worship, even while I know that some of that money is used to preach that children should be left to die rather than get a blood transfusion - murder, in my book.

Read this and am curious...what taxes are being used to support various houses of worship?

(Realizing this is off topic.)

 

[Drew]

No you're right. But the transformation you are speaking/referring of/to isn't the way Jesus wanted it done. Transformation through a secular government isn't good transformation for the Body of Christ.

Paul believes that all things are to be redeemed:

He <SUP class=footnote value='[y]'>[y]</SUP><SUP class=xref value='(AQ)'>(AQ)</SUP>is before all things, and in Him all things <SUP class=footnote value='[z]'>[z]</SUP>hold together. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NASB-29484>18</SUP> He is also <SUP class=xref value='(AR)'>(AR)</SUP>head of <SUP class=xref value='(AS)'>(AS)</SUP>the body, the church; and He is <SUP class=xref value='(AT)'>(AT)</SUP>the beginning, <SUP class=xref value='(AU)'>(AU)</SUP>the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NASB-29485>19</SUP> For <SUP class=footnote value='[aa]'>[aa]</SUP>it was <SUP class=xref value='(AV)'>(AV)</SUP>the Father’s good pleasure for all <SUP class=xref value='(AW)'>(AW)</SUP>the <SUP class=footnote value='[ab]'>[ab]</SUP>fullness to dwell in Him, <SUP class=versenum id=en-NASB-29486>20</SUP> and through Him to <SUP class=xref value='(AX)'>(AX)</SUP>reconcile all things to Himself, having made <SUP class=xref value='(AY)'>(AY)</SUP>peace through <SUP class=xref value='(AZ)'>(AZ)</SUP>the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, <SUP class=xref value='(BA)'>(BA)</SUP>whether things on earth or things in <SUP class=footnote value='[ac]'>[ac]</SUP>heaven.

I see no Biblical argument against the position that the Christian should advocate for the transformation of "governments".

I find it very curious indeed that anyone would think that the sweep of God's redemptive program does not include everything.

Do you believe that governments are beyond redemption? That God does not want us to work for their transformation. What specifically Biblical argument do you have for such a position, if this is indeed what you believe?

 

[Drew]

Q. Are Americans more or less charitable than citizens of other countries?
A. No developed country approaches American giving. For example, in 1995 (the most recent year for which data are available), Americans gave, per capita, three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians. Similarly, in 1998, Americans were 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss, and 32 percent more likely than the Germans. These differences are not attributable to demographic characteristics such as education, income, age, sex, or marital status. On the contrary, if we look at two people who are identical in all these ways except that one is European and the other American, the probability is still far lower that the European will volunteer than the American.

Can you please provide the source(s) from which you obtained this information?

 

[Drew]

I always liked Mt 25:14-30 The Parable of the Talents for the anti collectivism anti social justice scripture. Personal responsibility for what God has entrusted you with as well as reaping and sowing and accountability to God. The last couple lines of scripture there really destroy the redistributive idealogy, well sort of unless we look at God's redistribution plan where he takes from the unfruitful everything and gives it to the most fruitful.

This parable in no way speaks against "redistribution" of wealth. I think the primary message of this parable has nothing to do with "personal" responsibility, but instead entails a critique of national Israel for her failure to live up to her covenant obligation to be a light to the world. But even if the parable does, at some level at least, promote "personal" responsiblity, that is hardly an argument against people collectively acting to ensure that wealth flows from the rich to the poor.

You are, I suggest, mistaken when you imply that this bit "destroys" re-distribution theology:

For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NASB-24039>30</SUP> Throw out the worthless slave into <SUP class=xref value='(X)'>(X)</SUP>the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth

Notwithstanding whatever else this parable might mean, we know that the one who gets cast into outer darkness is one who is "worthless" and / or has wasted his master's money.

When you can make any kind of case that the "poor" are in that state because they are lazy and / or irresponsible, then perhaps you might have a case. I suggest that the vast majority of those who are poor are in that state for reasons largely beyond their control.

In any event, understood properly, the worthless slave is disobedient Israel. This parable is not "universal". This text is about God and Israel. As such it is a pointed critique on the part of Jesus against a people who have squandered their covenant responsibility to be the light of the world.

In the tradition that Jesus was embedded, stories about Master and servants were almost always about God and Israel. Read the Mishna - the rabbinic texts and you will see this.

 

[Drew]

Just as a note... that passage on the "rich" man and the needle isn't referring to "wealth" in the monetary sense but "wealth" in the spiritual sense. And when the scripture says that Jesus is good news to all "poor" it isn't referring to being "poor" in the monetary sense but in the spiritual sense. Now that we have that all cleared up....

What is your actual case for such a reading. I see no justification for it whatsoever. Precisely on what Biblical basis do you justify taking the word "poor" and reading it as "spiritually poor"?

 

[Drew]

Furthermore the Bible speaks for self-responsibility.

This does not, of course, mean that we are not to also pursue social justice.

Social justice creates a entitlement mentality.

How do you know this? What actual evidence do you have to offer? Presumably, you would agree that if, for every 10 people who were "rescued" from poverty by social justice one of them adopted a mentality of entitlement, it would still be worthwhile to pursue social justice.

Jesus never said the monetarily poor were entitled to anything but His Love and Grace (just as the monetarily rich are also entitled to it). No man is entitled to any earthly property.

I think this only works if you, arbitrarily it seems, transform "the gospel is good news for the poor" into "gospel is good news for the spiritually poor". I am confident you will not be able to defend such a move.

Why not "the gospel is good news for the bald - the poor in hair"?

And what about this from Isaiah 58:

“Is this not the fast which I choose,
To <SUP class=xref value='(M)'>(M)</SUP>loosen the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the bands of the yoke,
And to <SUP class=xref value='(N)'>(N)</SUP>let the oppressed go free
And <SUP class=xref value='(O)'>(O)</SUP>break every yoke?
<SUP class=versenum id=en-NASB-18794>7</SUP> “Is it not to <SUP class=xref value='(P)'>(P)</SUP>divide your bread <SUP class=footnote value='[c]'>[c]</SUP>with the hungry
And <SUP class=xref value='(Q)'>(Q)</SUP>bring the homeless poor into the house;
When you see the <SUP class=xref value='(R)'>(R)</SUP>naked, to cover him;

Has this principle lapsed? If so, why?

If not, how do defend transforming:

"to divide you your bread with the hungry"

into:

"to divide you your spiritual wisdom with the spiritually hungry"

I politely suggest one of the biggest illicit exegetical moves people employ is to, with no apparent justification whatsoever, carve up God's world into "spiritual" and "material" domains and decide that certain texts only speak to one of these two domains.

 

[Rhea]

Read this and am curious...what taxes are being used to support various houses of worship?

(Realizing this is off topic.)

The tax rate that we all pay which reflects a higher rate due to churches not paying any, but still using services.

If you take 10 people to lunch, and one of them doesn't pay their bill, the other nine must chip in an extra 10% to cover the one not paying. This may be okay for the 3 or 4 who are related to the deadbeat, but the other friends at the table may wonder why they are covering for Uncle Bob's meal.

There was another debate on this elsewhere on this site if you're interested in details.

But the crux is that the churches are Uncle Bob and we are all paying their taxes on their behalf, whether he's our uncle or not, even if Uncle Bob has insulted us or stolen from us in the past.

You can web-search on "tax the churches" to find out how many BILLIONS of dollars people are paying for churches.

 

[handy]

Ahhh...debatable whether not churches are "supported" because they don't pay taxes. But, that truly is a different topic...one I think was debated on a different thread. I was just curious...thought for a moment you weren't American and lived in a country with state sponsored churches. Anyway, thanks for answering the question.

Now...totopic

 

[jasoncran]

As you probably know, Planned Parenthood does much much more for the health of women than just abortions. They are often the only low-income provider of any women's health services. Churches do not provide this. They do not care if women have undiagnosed cervical cancer, for example. Planned parenthood does care.

Just an aside. You probably already know all the good things they do.

really churches dont care? really my church praye for a women who had that and would donate money for that care.

you mean like push laws where teens can get abortions without parental consent. or where rather place them to parents who would want that newborn and raise them as they cant have kids. hmm does ppl donate any money to the rcc that has adoption programs. do they?
outside the church who does the adoptions. i know of only the church being the leader in that. yes some other groups do that stuff. but yearly a large church has a big convention to where you can learn to adopt and also on foster care.

i know what ppl does. funny thing they are often in the paper and often challenged and in my state many school districts have removed funding for them.

ah yes murder kids so that they dont suffer, i love that logic, i say to save money bomb and i mean nuke haiti, and ethopia etc and india. let their deaths be sweet and quick and ,mericiful just like that saline death that often used.

and lets forget that certian indivuals lived and bush signed a law to save them babies that survived yet these same pushers of abortion marveled and casey. she did what ppl and like socieity of death pushed. put mommy first and then child. its sad that the caylee act is even be considered. but a sign of the times.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

She's also dead.
The USA was founded by mysogenists and racists who advocated slavery. By your logic we should hate today's America because of the facts of it's founding. And I'm sure you can come up with some other institutions that should be shunned because of the eugenics views of their previous leaders? The logic is flawed because it is history, not present. You punish the child for the sins of the father here.

I do not agree with all of Sanger's philosophy. I DO agree with her philosophy that birth control should never be forced on competent women. I am on the fence about our nation's laws which permit limitations on parenting for those in mentally limited conditions (Sanger agreed with our current laws).

But, in the end, she's dead. And has been dead since 1966. She has not been running the organization, nor pushing a eugenics agenda certainly since her death - and no one else at Planned Parenthood has, either.

So her views are what we would call a "Red Herring". A distraction having nothing whatsoever to do with the current mission and objectives of planned parenthood.


I've read it. I don't agree with all of her reasons. I do agree with many - that is getting birth control into the hands of any woman who wants it,
especially the poor who cannot afford birth control through the market.

The ability to control one's fertility and family is one of the best charities we can provide.


It's in this thread because a poster used it as a reason why he should not contribute to governmental charity. Despite NONE of the government dollars going towards the procedures to which he objects.

NONE of the money we are talking about here via government social charity goes toward abortion. We don't need to debate it because it is not part of this equation. I wanted to make sure that was clear.

Planned Parenthood provides non-abortion medical care to women who have no other way to get it. That it what makes them a charity, that is what makes them valuable and honorable.

Planned Parenthood is not a charity. Nothing they do is charitable. Abortions and birth control are not forms of charity nor Biblically supported. Just because they offer other health services does not change the fact that abortion is nothing more than child sacrifice. Their defense as a charity has no place on this thread. If you'd like , please address the points I made in post #41 or, start a separate thread on the Founding Fathers. Both of us should get back on topic.