• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Social Justice

The old testament was a format given for the nation of Israel under God's own leadership. It can't be used for todays USA. In the New Testament, it is a template for the Church, not Civil government. "Social Justice has nothing to do with the Church, it's not her function.

Actually it DOES have something to do with the Church, and that is what the new testament Church did, enacted Socail Justice, created an egalaterian economy.

Also the reason those principles were put under church institutions and not government is because they early christians didn't have any political power, nor did they control any civic organizations, had they however, and had they done so consistantly, obviously they would have applied the sample principles.

If you ARE a christian (or claim to be), and are in a position to shape civil institutions, you would do so (lest you be a hypocrite) in light of christian principles.

As for the old testament, the principles there would also apply, not the laws themselves but the "spirit" of the law, also as I showed, God judged OTHER nations, not for not following the law, but for denying Godly principles that apply to anyone and everyone, such as social treatment of the poor.
 
This thread is about what christian principles should guide a christian's attitude toward social issues, distribution of resources, economic institutinos, property, social wellbeing, poverty, class inequality and so on.

The old testament
Although not binding for christians, and although relative and for just one nation in a specific circumstance, we can still derive principles from the old law, the torah.

1. Jubilee laws: Leviticus 25, a redistribution every 7 and 50 years, debts are relieved, debt slaves are freed (whether or not they have worked of their debt), and land is redistributed. This shows that property was less important than social equality, and market contracts less important than social equality in the eyes of YHWH.

2. Gleaning laws: Deuteronomy 24, Leviticus 19, Land rights were not aboslute, you're land belonged to the poor as much as it belonged to yourself, you're reaping of the land was regulated so that the poor had rights to it as well.

3. Tything: Deuteronomy 24, the tything laws, went to the temple, they were not the tax from the king, they were specifically for the temple who distributed to the needy, meaning that social justice, providing for the poor was necessary, not left up to the whims of the wealthy.

You also have the COUNTLESS texts about the poor, and justice (Justice in Hebrew mishpat and tsedaqah, zedaqaht refers to obligatory charity, charity meaning not just giving, but you're attitude toward others, Misphat refers to an obligation to do whatever is necessary to increase the quality of a person’s welfare Justice, this is according to Jewish theologans), so justice is not just under the law having due process, it's ECONOMIC justice, social justice, and given the context of the scriptures, justice toward the poor, loving the widow and orphan and alien resident, righteousness toward the poor and so on.

There are 2130 verses in the old testament about the poor, almost ALL of them are about God's concern for the poor and demanding that his people show concern for the poor, and that God demans Justice (obligatory charity) for the poor.

Psalms 72 is a prayer for the kings, or public institutions, and it's clear,
Vrs 4 May he defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; may he crush the oppressor.
vrs 12 For he will deliver the needy who cry out,the afflicted who have no one to help.
Clearly it is the public institutions role to care for the poor.

Isaiah 5 a song about the vinyard, the economy institutions. And he condemns those farmers who grew there estates putting smaller ones out of buisiness, i.e. Class exploitation

Isaiah 65: 21, 22, puts out a vision of a better economy.
They will build houses and dwell in them;
they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
No longer will they build houses and others live in them,
or plant and others eat.
For as the days of a tree,
so will be the days of my people;
my chosen ones will long enjoy
the work of their hands.

This is EXACTLY pointing out a better system, one free of economic exploitation.

Soddom and Ghomorah were destroyed for their treatment of the poor, Ezekiel 16:49
“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
The guilt was the society, THAT was the reason YHWH destroyed those cities.

The prophetic tradition: Over and over again the prophets condemn the societies treatment of view of the poor, I can't list all the verses, there are literally thousands.

But here are some examples. Amos 4:1
"Hear this word, you cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria,
you women who oppress the poor and crush the needy
and say to your husbands, “Bring us some drinks!”
Isaiah 1:21-23
"See how the faithful city
has become a prostitute!
She once was full of justice;
righteousness used to dwell in her—
but now murderers!
22 Your silver has become dross,
your choice wine is diluted with water.
23 Your rulers are rebels,
partners with thieves;
they all love bribes
and chase after gifts.
They do not defend the cause of the fatherless;
the widow’s case does not come before them."

The whole city was implicated in their sins against the afflicted.

Isaiah 58:3

‘Why have we fasted,’ they say,
‘and you have not seen it?
Why have we humbled ourselves,
and you have not noticed?’
“Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please
and exploit all your workers.

Exploitation of workers here undoes the pius deeds.

Then 6, 7
“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
7 Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe them,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?"

The exploitation has to end, and a community of sharing begin Notice, being free from oppression is contrasted with economic exploitation.

Then vrs 10

"and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday."

Piosness is onli accepted when you first work for social justice.

These were messsages to the whole nation, society as a whole.
I can go on to talk about Greed and so on. But I think my point is pretty damn clear. The Old Testament God is EXTREMELY concerned about social justice.

The sooner we get rid of governments, the sooner we can begin to create a socially just world.

I agree that we should be kind to our neighbors and help the poor who are truly in need. I also recognize that the government is the absolute worst vehicle through which to deliver this.
 
Actually it DOES have something to do with the Church, and that is what the new testament Church did, enacted Socail Justice, created an egalaterian economy.

Also the reason those principles were put under church institutions and not government is because they early christians didn't have any political power, nor did they control any civic organizations, had they however, and had they done so consistantly, obviously they would have applied the sample principles.

If you ARE a christian (or claim to be), and are in a position to shape civil institutions, you would do so (lest you be a hypocrite) in light of christian principles.

As for the old testament, the principles there would also apply, not the laws themselves but the "spirit" of the law, also as I showed, God judged OTHER nations, not for not following the law, but for denying Godly principles that apply to anyone and everyone, such as social treatment of the poor.

But it was NOT FORCED by government and paid for by taxes. That is my point. It was done because of the Lord Jesus Christ leading His people. It was how the Church was distinguished from the rest of the world.

To your second point, Paul actually said "if a man doesn't work, he doesn't eat". That doesn't fit with the programs that the government is enforcing through taxation. They allow a segment of the population to do nothing. Which leads to too much idle time, which leads to drugs, alcoholism and crime. I don't mind the government helping so long as it's not a way of life for people. In my opinion, looking at the results of all this social justice, it actually just keeps people dependent on the government. When Reagan introduced the idea of working for your welfare, people actually went out and got jobs because they could make more money that way. That is proof that they just wanted to sit around and collect money for nothing and it kept them in poverty.
 
But it was NOT FORCED by government and paid for by taxes. That is my point. It was done because of the Lord Jesus Christ leading His people. It was how the Church was distinguished from the rest of the world.

To your second point, Paul actually said "if a man doesn't work, he doesn't eat". That doesn't fit with the programs that the government is enforcing through taxation. They allow a segment of the population to do nothing. Which leads to too much idle time, which leads to drugs, alcoholism and crime. I don't mind the government helping so long as it's not a way of life for people. In my opinion, looking at the results of all this social justice, it actually just keeps people dependent on the government. When Reagan introduced the idea of working for your welfare, people actually went out and got jobs because they could make more money that way. That is proof that they just wanted to sit around and collect money for nothing and it kept them in poverty.

1. It was more radical than that, it was COMPLETE redistribution from private property to "holding all things in common." Also the ONLY people killed in the NT by God were 2 people that hoarded the treasures away from the church.

2. That was paul writing to those in the Roman Empire, and yeah, its sound advice, do some work, but that was not a verse describing how people of God should organize themselves, or relate to society, it was (as is clear in the context) personal advice.

3. The Christian ethic is not tax and welfare, (or GIVING to the poor as many people claim), its about our ENTIRE approach to soceity, our entire approach or socio-economic affairs, the first century church isn't just give to the poor, the radically changed the economic system, same with the OT, redistribution was done every 7 years, and property laws were not fixed, they were subject to social need, God CONDEMNS first and formost those who do not "love their neighbor" or "practice justice (justice defined in the Hebraic form, see my OP)." If a Christian is to involve himself an civil affairs those concerns should be formost, it TOTALLY opposes the Capitalist Ayn Rand style ethic.

(I'm not gonna talk about that Reagen nonsense, this is a theological discussion, I want to keep it to the scriptures).
 
1. It was more radical than that, it was COMPLETE redistribution from private property to "holding all things in common." Also the ONLY people killed in the NT by God were 2 people that hoarded the treasures away from the church.

2. That was paul writing to those in the Roman Empire, and yeah, its sound advice, do some work, but that was not a verse describing how people of God should organize themselves, or relate to society, it was (as is clear in the context) personal advice.

3. The Christian ethic is not tax and welfare, (or GIVING to the poor as many people claim), its about our ENTIRE approach to soceity, our entire approach or socio-economic affairs, the first century church isn't just give to the poor, the radically changed the economic system, same with the OT, redistribution was done every 7 years, and property laws were not fixed, they were subject to social need, God CONDEMNS first and formost those who do not "love their neighbor" or "practice justice (justice defined in the Hebraic form, see my OP)." If a Christian is to involve himself an civil affairs those concerns should be formost, it TOTALLY opposes the Capitalist Ayn Rand style ethic.

(I'm not gonna talk about that Reagen nonsense, this is a theological discussion, I want to keep it to the scriptures).

1. It was more radical than that, it was COMPLETE redistribution from private property to "holding all things in common." Also the ONLY people killed in the NT by God were 2 people that hoarded the treasures away from the church.


Yes, but only within the Church itself.

2. That was paul writing to those in the Roman Empire, and yeah, its sound advice, do some work, but that was not a verse describing how people of God should organize themselves, or relate to society, it was (as is clear in the context) personal advice.

Still very applicable today. Again, I'm not adverse to helping people out when needed, it just shouldn't be a lifestyle.

3. The Christian ethic is not tax and welfare, (or GIVING to the poor as many people claim), its about our ENTIRE approach to soceity, our entire approach or socio-economic affairs, the first century church isn't just give to the poor, the radically changed the economic system, same with the OT, redistribution was done every 7 years, and property laws were not fixed, they were subject to social need, God CONDEMNS first and formost those who do not "love their neighbor" or "practice justice (justice defined in the Hebraic form, see my OP)." If a Christian is to involve himself an civil affairs those concerns should be formost, it TOTALLY opposes the Capitalist Ayn Rand style ethic.

We can not impose a God style government in this society. In the end, even the Israelites rejected God as King and asked God to give them a an as king. I would love to see a year of Jubilee in our system.

Yes, we are commanded to love our neighbor as a Church and as Christians, not as a government. Do you really think we can impose a Christian government to rule over this nation? It will never happen! The way this government is going about income redistribution is actually hurting this country. It is stifling job/ wealth creation. to do what you want, we will have stagnant growth, perpetual high unemployment and high debt that, in the end, will destroy this country (just like it is in Europe). The numbers don't add up. However, under capitalism, this country created more wealth for more people than any other style of government ever. Even the poor among us are in the top 10% of the wealthy in this world. We had (until this admin) the fewest per capita poor of any nation in the world. And our rich were among the most generous the world has ever seen. What it comes down to is jealousy. People like you are jealous of another person success. And I am not coming from the standpoint of being rich either. I am actually permanently disabled. I just had the forethought to have disability insurance, that I paid for, so I don't have to worry too much. You just have to have a good understanding of economics 101.
 
Yes, but only within the Church itself.
Already responded to that, that was becasuse the christian ethic was only practiced within the church, and the christians had no influence outside of it, had they had influence of coarse they would bring their christian beliefs and ethics with them
Still very applicable today. Again, I'm not adverse to helping people out when needed, it just shouldn't be a lifestyle.

That isn't what the scriptures say ... it SHOULD be a lifestyle, and it's not just about helping people out, it's about ones attitude toward ones neighbor.

Yes, we are commanded to love our neighbor as a Church and as Christians, not as a government. Do you really think we can impose a Christian government to rule over this nation? It will never happen! The way this government is going about income redistribution is actually hurting this country. It is stifling job/ wealth creation. to do what you want, we will have stagnant growth, perpetual high unemployment and high debt that, in the end, will destroy this country (just like it is in Europe). The numbers don't add up. However, under capitalism, this country created more wealth for more people than any other style of government ever. Even the poor among us are in the top 10% of the wealthy in this world. We had (until this admin) the fewest per capita poor of any nation in the world. And our rich were among the most generous the world has ever seen. What it comes down to is jealousy. People like you are jealous of another person success. And I am not coming from the standpoint of being rich either. I am actually permanently disabled. I just had the forethought to have disability insurance, that I paid for, so I don't have to worry too much. You just have to have a good understanding of economics 101.

That isn't what the scriptures say, the scriptures say it should affect EVERY ASPECT of our lives, that all we do should be for the glory of God. Also when God DID have a special nation, he made sure HIS ethics were in place, i.e. redistribution, communal economic principles and s on.

If you want to talk the economics of it that's a different issues, if by this government, you mean the American government I can assure you, it's not communal economics that's destroying the economy, and in the countries in europe that are suffering (interestinly enough, the ones that went through a neo-liberal reformation in the 80s are the ones that are suffering much more so than the ones with strong social democracies), it's financialization, de-regulation, privitization, and essencially handing over the economy to the banking system.

It has nothing to do with Jealousy, I do pretty damn well for myself, this is about theology, so far I havn't heard ONE theological argument, or ONE argument from scripture.

If you don't like the Christian social ethic that's fine, but it IS the biblical social ethic.
 
Last edited:
That isn't what the scriptures say ... it SHOULD be a lifestyle, and it's not just about helping people out, it's about ones attitude toward ones neighbor.



That isn't what the scriptures say, the scriptures say it should affect EVERY ASPECT of our lives, that all we do should be for the glory of God. Also when God DID have a special nation, he made sure HIS ethics were in place, i.e. redistribution, communal economic principles and s on.

If you want to talk the economics of it that's a different issues, if by this government, you mean the American government I can assure you, it's not communal economics that's destroying the economy, and in the countries in europe that are suffering (interestinly enough, the ones that went through a neo-liberal reformation in the 80s are the ones that are suffering much more so than the ones with strong social democracies), it's financialization, de-regulation, privitization, and essencially handing over the economy to the banking system.

It has nothing to do with Jealousy, I do pretty damn well for myself, this is about theology, so far I havn't heard ONE theological argument, or ONE argument from scripture.

If you don't like the Christian social ethic that's fine, but it IS the biblical social ethic.

I haven't seen one Biblical reference where Jesus or the Apostles commanded us to take over governments and transfer wealth, by force, from the wealthy to the poor either. In fact, there are MANY references that talk about freely giving to one another. That is the act of the will, not the enforced act of government. Forcing the wealthy to pay enormous amounts of taxes actually hurts the poor and big government actually hurts the economy. It's not a separate argument, it's all tied together. The rich are NEVER going to curtail their lifestyle because we tax them more. They will simply keep charging more for their products and services while cutting back on growth and hiring. It's called a downward spiral.

Acts 2:42They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

The scripture above is clearly ONLY referring to the Church. It had NOTHING to do with the government. I challenge you to provide one shred of evidence that the Church was commanded to take over the government, tax the wealthy of their income and redistribute it to the poor... by force of mans law.
 
I haven't seen one Biblical reference where Jesus or the Apostles commanded us to take over governments and transfer wealth, by force, from the wealthy to the poor either. In fact, there are MANY references that talk about freely giving to one another. That is the act of the will, not the enforced act of government. Forcing the wealthy to pay enormous amounts of taxes actually hurts the poor and big government actually hurts the economy. It's not a separate argument, it's all tied together. The rich are NEVER going to curtail their lifestyle because we tax them more. They will simply keep charging more for their products and services while cutting back on growth and hiring. It's called a downward spiral.

Acts 2:42They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

The scripture above is clearly ONLY referring to the Church. It had NOTHING to do with the government. I challenge you to provide one shred of evidence that the Church was commanded to take over the government, tax the wealthy of their income and redistribute it to the poor... by force of mans law.

Yeah, Jesus and the apostles were not revolutionary socialists ... nor did I claim they were, please read the OP, also in the OP when Gods people DID run a society they DID make sure the foundations were socially or communally based as opposed to property or profit based, this is a FACT.

Also I'm not a tax and welfare socialist, so that's a strawman .... (it's also a patently wrong argument to say taxation necessarily leads to inflation, it's untrue, and can be demonstrated so, if you'd like me to go through the economic argument I'll do so in another thread.)

The Scripture above is only referring to the Church because the christians DID'NT HAVE ANY INFLUENCE OVER THE GOVERNMENT!!!! But, it is an expression of Christian principles and ethics, and those christian ethics and principles apply to ALL parts of life that we are involved in, including civic matters, if we are involved in them, if you claim that as soon as you start participating in civic affairs that christian principles suddenly don't apply you'd have to show me scriptural evidence for that.
 
Yeah, Jesus and the apostles were not revolutionary socialists ... nor did I claim they were, please read the OP, also in the OP when Gods people DID run a society they DID make sure the foundations were socially or communally based as opposed to property or profit based, this is a FACT.

Also I'm not a tax and welfare socialist, so that's a strawman .... (it's also a patently wrong argument to say taxation necessarily leads to inflation, it's untrue, and can be demonstrated so, if you'd like me to go through the economic argument I'll do so in another thread.)

The Scripture above is only referring to the Church because the christians DID'NT HAVE ANY INFLUENCE OVER THE GOVERNMENT!!!! But, it is an expression of Christian principles and ethics, and those christian ethics and principles apply to ALL parts of life that we are involved in, including civic matters, if we are involved in them, if you claim that as soon as you start participating in civic affairs that christian principles suddenly don't apply you'd have to show me scriptural evidence for that.

I never said Christian principles don't apply. But the nation of Israel was led by God, not man. Everybody in Israel believed and worshipped God. The difference is, our economy is totally different. The nation of Israel didn't tolerate gays, idolators, adulterers and the like either. Again, Jesus came to destroy religion, not start a new one. He built the Church for survival under any and all governments. I patently disagree that we can make our government a theocracy. We are not commanded to bring the Kingdom of God to the earth and "force" people to follow our God and our principals. God doesn't force His will on anyone anymore. We have a choice. I am not against the government helping people, but I don't believe the government should play the role of "Robin Hood" either.
 
I never said Christian principles don't apply. But the nation of Israel was led by God, not man. Everybody in Israel believed and worshipped God. The difference is, our economy is totally different. The nation of Israel didn't tolerate gays, idolators, adulterers and the like either. Again, Jesus came to destroy religion, not start a new one. He built the Church for survival under any and all governments. I patently disagree that we can make our government a theocracy. We are not commanded to bring the Kingdom of God to the earth and "force" people to follow our God and our principals. God doesn't force His will on anyone anymore. We have a choice. I am not against the government helping people, but I don't believe the government should play the role of "Robin Hood" either.

Actually Post Saul it was lead by Man, but accountable to God, also at almost NO point in history, until the return from babylon did everyone in Israel believe and worship God, that's simply historically innaccurate, infact a majority if the kings DID NOT (at least exclusively) worship God (all of this is in the bible).

Those laws that God gave were not always followed, and the spirit wasn't always followed either, which is why prophets came, and more often than not their message was that of social justice, these were messangers OF GOD, reflecting the will of God.

Christ didn't come to destroy religion, Christ WAS religious, Christianity WAS a religion and always understood as such.

I'm not arguing that we make our government a theocracy, I'm saying if one is invovled in civic affaird OF COARSE he would apply his christian principles there as he would in every aspect of his life.

You don't believe the goernment should play the role of "robin hood" but God does in the old testement, and in the NT, the ONLY governing authority sanctioned by God on earth, the church, followed those principles as well, what is government other than a collection of people that create a social contract, or a foundation on which to build society, if you are invovled in that contract or shaping the institutions that make the framework of the economy, christian principles of egalitarianism would MOST CERTIANLY come into play, lest you by a hypocrite.

If you're arguing that christian principles should not play a role in our civil affairs, you'd need to present some scriptual evidence of that, of which you havn't, not once.

I spent the time to find plenty of scriptural evidence and basis for my social theology, why don't you?
 
The "ALL" part is my mistake, here is the text.

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Sorry about that.

I still think twtt78640 is correct that it is a personal obligation not a legal one. From 1 Timothy 1:

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
 
Actually Post Saul it was lead by Man, but accountable to God, also at almost NO point in history, until the return from babylon did everyone in Israel believe and worship God, that's simply historically innaccurate, infact a majority if the kings DID NOT (at least exclusively) worship God (all of this is in the bible).

Those laws that God gave were not always followed, and the spirit wasn't always followed either, which is why prophets came, and more often than not their message was that of social justice, these were messangers OF GOD, reflecting the will of God.

Christ didn't come to destroy religion, Christ WAS religious, Christianity WAS a religion and always understood as such.

I'm not arguing that we make our government a theocracy, I'm saying if one is invovled in civic affaird OF COARSE he would apply his christian principles there as he would in every aspect of his life.

You don't believe the goernment should play the role of "robin hood" but God does in the old testement, and in the NT, the ONLY governing authority sanctioned by God on earth, the church, followed those principles as well, what is government other than a collection of people that create a social contract, or a foundation on which to build society, if you are invovled in that contract or shaping the institutions that make the framework of the economy, christian principles of egalitarianism would MOST CERTIANLY come into play, lest you by a hypocrite.

If you're arguing that christian principles should not play a role in our civil affairs, you'd need to present some scriptual evidence of that, of which you havn't, not once.

I spent the time to find plenty of scriptural evidence and basis for my social theology, why don't you?

No, they weren't always followed, but the country was started by God, for God. I believe, as our Christian founders did, in small government and a robust economy through freedom and capitalism. yes, capitalism has it's flaws, but they are fewer than socialism.

You have not shown me the references I asked for, why? Because you can't. References to Christians taking over governments and eventually the world to enforce Christian egalitarianism across the world just don't exist. You are trying to take Christian principals and force them over everybody against their will. They aren't designed for that.
 
I still think twtt78640 is correct that it is a personal obligation not a legal one. From 1 Timothy 1:

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

That passage is talking about the mosaic law .... it doesn't affect my argument at all.
 
No, they weren't always followed, but the country was started by God, for God. I believe, as our Christian founders did, in small government and a robust economy through freedom and capitalism. yes, capitalism has it's flaws, but they are fewer than socialism.

You have not shown me the references I asked for, why? Because you can't. References to Christians taking over governments and eventually the world to enforce Christian egalitarianism across the world just don't exist. You are trying to take Christian principals and force them over everybody against their will. They aren't designed for that.

1. Depends what you mean by socialism, socialism is a very broad term.

2. Of coarse there are not references to christians taking over the government and enforcing christian egalitarianism .... that wasn't my argument, that's a strawman, but I'm asking YOU for a referance to show that we shouldn't use christian ethics, INCLUDING christian egalitarianism in our life, INCLUDING our civil involvements ...

Of coarse it isn't a christian duty to be a revolutionary, I made that pretty clear in my OP, HOWEVER christian principles do apply in every aspect of our life, INCLUDING civil affairs, what reference is there that when we engage in civic affairs we can suddenly not be christians, or not let christian principles guide us?

I find it funny that right wingers desperately want to avoid having to be christians when dealing with society, UNLESS it's an excuse to look down on homosexuals or soemthing like that.
 
1. Depends what you mean by socialism, socialism is a very broad term.

2. Of coarse there are not references to christians taking over the government and enforcing christian egalitarianism .... that wasn't my argument, that's a strawman, but I'm asking YOU for a referance to show that we shouldn't use christian ethics, INCLUDING christian egalitarianism in our life, INCLUDING our civil involvements ...

Of coarse it isn't a christian duty to be a revolutionary, I made that pretty clear in my OP, HOWEVER christian principles do apply in every aspect of our life, INCLUDING civil affairs, what reference is there that when we engage in civic affairs we can suddenly not be christians, or not let christian principles guide us?

I find it funny that right wingers desperately want to avoid having to be christians when dealing with society, UNLESS it's an excuse to look down on homosexuals or soemthing like that.

I never said that Christian principals don't apply in our lives. We are given two commands by Jesus Christ. They both involve love. Love of God and love of our neighbor. I just believe that we can enforce those principals over others. I give as God leads me to give. If the government taxes me to death, I can no longer do that. I can only give to the government and they decide who gets what. Government also wastes more money than they actually use to help others. I would rather 100% of my contribution going to help who God told me to help than for 10% of my contribution go to help and 90% going to government waste. Government also gets way too powerful as it gets bigger. They will (if they haven't already) get us to the point that we depend on them, then they begin to take our freedoms away and tell us what we can say, what we can do and even tell us what we can eat... Oh, wait, that's what's already happening!!! I say small government and let the Christian be led of God to where He wants the money to go. I would rather be led of the Spirit than led by the government/ law.
 
I never said that Christian principals don't apply in our lives. We are given two commands by Jesus Christ. They both involve love. Love of God and love of our neighbor. I just believe that we can enforce those principals over others. I give as God leads me to give. If the government taxes me to death, I can no longer do that. I can only give to the government and they decide who gets what. Government also wastes more money than they actually use to help others. I would rather 100% of my contribution going to help who God told me to help than for 10% of my contribution go to help and 90% going to government waste. Government also gets way too powerful as it gets bigger. They will (if they haven't already) get us to the point that we depend on them, then they begin to take our freedoms away and tell us what we can say, what we can do and even tell us what we can eat... Oh, wait, that's what's already happening!!! I say small government and let the Christian be led of God to where He wants the money to go. I would rather be led of the Spirit than led by the government/ law.

If you are in government, and you give tax brakes to the rich while at the same time cutting food stamps .... you are simply doing something unchristian, plain and simple, this isn't about "big" or "small" government, this is about the foundations of which our society is built on, is it communal and egalitarian, or is it private and profit driven?

Saying instead of buying more missles we will fund upstart workers cooperatives for unemployed people with ideas but no capital or ability to get it, (a socialist idea that the right simply ignores), does make larger or smaller government, it's a matter of deciding what kind of society we live in.

If we allow healthcare to be private and run FOR profit, as opposed to universal and not for profit (whether or not it's in the sphere of government or not), isn't about bigger or smaller government, or freedom, its about how our society views healthcare.

Are we going to have a society where profit decides who can work and eat? Or where everyone contributes to take care of everyone else.

In the OT, God didn't agree with you, it doesn't matter whether or not the nation was founded to God or not, it was run by humans, and God had his opinion on HOW it should be run, why do you feel differently?

The Christian Church didn't say "oh we are taxing people to death and redistirbuting," no that wasn't even the issue, they "HELD EVERYTHING IN COMMON," these were men, like you and me, that were organizing this, why? Because they understood that in the community that they had an influence over, they were to impliment christian principles.
 
If you are in government, and you give tax brakes to the rich while at the same time cutting food stamps .... you are simply doing something unchristian, plain and simple, this isn't about "big" or "small" government, this is about the foundations of which our society is built on, is it communal and egalitarian, or is it private and profit driven?

Saying instead of buying more missles we will fund upstart workers cooperatives for unemployed people with ideas but no capital or ability to get it, (a socialist idea that the right simply ignores), does make larger or smaller government, it's a matter of deciding what kind of society we live in.

If we allow healthcare to be private and run FOR profit, as opposed to universal and not for profit (whether or not it's in the sphere of government or not), isn't about bigger or smaller government, or freedom, its about how our society views healthcare.

Are we going to have a society where profit decides who can work and eat? Or where everyone contributes to take care of everyone else.

In the OT, God didn't agree with you, it doesn't matter whether or not the nation was founded to God or not, it was run by humans, and God had his opinion on HOW it should be run, why do you feel differently?

The Christian Church didn't say "oh we are taxing people to death and redistirbuting," no that wasn't even the issue, they "HELD EVERYTHING IN COMMON," these were men, like you and me, that were organizing this, why? Because they understood that in the community that they had an influence over, they were to impliment christian principles.

One very important part of that last statement that you left out. Yes, everything was held in common, WITHIN THE CHURCH. It was not by the government to try and feed everybody. Paul even said... 2 Thessalonians 3:6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
11We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. 13And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good.14Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

It seems that Paul agreed with me here.
 
That passage is talking about the mosaic law .... it doesn't affect my argument at all.

Sure it does--your OP starts in the Old Testament :2wave:
 
One very important part of that last statement that you left out. Yes, everything was held in common, WITHIN THE CHURCH. It was not by the government to try and feed everybody. Paul even said... 2 Thessalonians 3:6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
11We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. 13And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good.14Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

It seems that Paul agreed with me here.


I've answered this already ... it's rediculous you keep brining it up ... of coarse it was within the Church and not the state because the christians ONLY HAD INFUENCE ON THE CHURCH, they had non one the state, but had they at that time had influence on how society at large was run why would they not use that influence in line with christian values? Such as socio-economic egalitarianism?

As far as Thessalonians 3:6, this has no socio-economic message other than individuals should work .... and not be lazy, I don't see what's wrong with that or how it contradicts the egalitarian message .... The most ardent anarcho-communist would agree with that statement.

This whole "it was only in the church not the greater society thing" doesn't work, it was in the entire society that the christians were responsible for, had they been responsible for soceity OUTSIDE the church it follows that the same principles apply.
 
Sure it does--your OP starts in the Old Testament :2wave:

The Mosaic Law is in 4 books of the OT ... I quote all over the OT, and I only appeal to the Mosaic law twice, the rest are from the prophets, universal law and so on, read the thread.

Also are you saying you want to dismiss the WHOLE OT for theological study for christians?
 
One more interesting point, when Jesus drove out the money changers, Jesus in Mark and Matthew only drives out those selling doves ... i.e. exploiting the poor.
 
In other words, "socialism".

Why do socialist and communist always try to hide thier point of view by not coming right out and stating it?

There is nothing wrong with socialism.....if it is practiced without zero corruption, and indeed everybody is treated equally.
 
There is nothing wrong with socialism.....if it is practiced without zero corruption, and indeed everybody is treated equally.

Total crap. It is based on corruption and has a failed where it's been tried. As Winston Churchill so famously stated, "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Well said Winston!
 


Total crap. It is based on corruption and has a failed where it's been tried. As Winston Churchill so famously stated, "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Well said Winston!

I don't care what Winston Churchill said, I care what Jesus and his apostles said.
 
I don't care what Winston Churchill said, I care what Jesus and his apostles said.
No you don't. You will pick and choose what Scriptures you wish to use and twist the rest till they fit your world-view. It's dishonest and unintelligent.
 
Back
Top Bottom