• 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.

Pope Francis and Economic Justice

RAMOSS said:
No, buy/selling, wages, taxes (or lack thereof) or any kind of activity will result in wealth redistribution.
Click to expand...

no that is a gross distortion of the definition.


Central tenet of most modern economies whereby a nation's wealth is channeled, from those who have more to those below a certain income level.

the theory, policy, or practice of lessening or reducing inequalities in income through such measures as progressive income taxation and antipoverty programs
 
RGacky3 said:
Exactly, wealth redistribution happens no matter what, economic justice can invovle many many many different Things, including wealth redistribution.
Click to expand...

no it doesn't. you entering into a legal economic activity is not wealth redistribution.

Wealth redistribution strictly deals with taking usually by force from someone who has more than what you think they need to someone else that doesn't.
that is what wealth redistribution is and any other definition you want to try an assign to it is nothing more than a strawman.
 
RGacky3 said:
Acts 2 and 4.

Leviticus 19, 25,

Deuteronomy 24.

It's pretty damn Clear here (and many, many, many other scriptures) what kind of economic system is in line With God's justice.

Hell Usury, (charging of any interest) was an abomination, and that was upheld by Jesus ... Yet Usury (profit taking, charging of interest) is the main cornerstone of modern Capitalism.
Click to expand...

has nothing to do with wealth redistribution as i already said i have already destroyed you in this argument before.
 
ludin said:
no that is a gross distortion of the definition.


Central tenet of most modern economies whereby a nation's wealth is channeled, from those who have more to those below a certain income level.

the theory, policy, or practice of lessening or reducing inequalities in income through such measures as progressive income taxation and antipoverty programs
Click to expand...


Yet, tax cuts, or going to 'supply side economics' also is wealth distribution, which basically moves wealth from the middle class to the rich. Oh, and 'free market economy' attempts also do that.
 
RAMOSS said:
Yet, tax cuts, or going to 'supply side economics' also is wealth distribution, which basically moves wealth from the middle class to the rich. Oh, and 'free market economy' attempts also do that.
Click to expand...

typical liberal response.

Tax cuts benefit everyone. the poor persont that gets 10% more in their paycheck can use that a whole bunch more than that rich guy that got 5%.
no the free market directs money to where it should go based on productivity. IE the less productive you are the less money will flow your way.
the more productive you are the better off you will be.

it also directs that those with better marketables will also earn more as well.
that is why the kid with the college degree will earn more than the guy that dropped out of high school and never finished.

yet that is still a distortion of the definitions please see the definitions that i posted. those are the actual definitions of the word if you can't keep within that context then you have proven yourself to be dishoneset and any other argument is a strawman.

There is nothing in Christs message or the bible about wealth redistribution and forcefully taking from someone and giving it to someone else.
 
ludin said:
typical liberal response.

Tax cuts benefit everyone. the poor persont that gets 10% more in their paycheck can use that a whole bunch more than that rich guy that got 5%.
no the free market directs money to where it should go based on productivity. IE the less productive you are the less money will flow your way.
the more productive you are the better off you will be.

it also directs that those with better marketables will also earn more as well.
that is why the kid with the college degree will earn more than the guy that dropped out of high school and never finished.

yet that is still a distortion of the definitions please see the definitions that i posted. those are the actual definitions of the word if you can't keep within that context then you have proven yourself to be dishoneset and any other argument is a strawman.

There is nothing in Christs message or the bible about wealth redistribution and forcefully taking from someone and giving it to someone else.
Click to expand...


Is that the best you got?? WHine about 'typical liberal response'. On the contrary, Jesus was all about social justice. The whole capitalist/socialist/free market economy concepts were not developed yet. However, he said 'Render onto Cesar what is Caesar's. And he also said '

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: (25:35) I was a stranger, and ye took me in.
How should strangers be treated?
What must you do to be saved?

(25:37) Then shall the righteous answer
Has there ever been a righteous person?
25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (25:40)
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Quoted by Elizabeth Warren in her 2012 Democratic National Convention speech.

(25:41) Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.
How long does God's anger last?
Is salvation by faith alone?
Does Hell exist?
What the Bible says about torture

(25:46a) These shall go away into everlasting punishment.
How long does God's anger last?
Is death final?

(25:46b) The righteous into life eternal
Has there ever been a righteous person?
25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.


So, he definitely was all about the poor, and paying your taxes to the Government. Sorry, but the socialpathic complaining of the libertarian and the prosperity christian seems to go directly against what the message of Jesus in the bible seems to be (at least to me).

It seems that Pope Francis agrees.
 
ludin said:
no it doesn't. you entering into a legal economic activity is not wealth redistribution.

Wealth redistribution strictly deals with taking usually by force from someone who has more than what you think they need to someone else that doesn't.
that is what wealth redistribution is and any other definition you want to try an assign to it is nothing more than a strawman.
Click to expand...

Taxes are a legal economic Activity.

So are Public industries.

So are social services.

So are the commons

and so on and so forth.

has nothing to do with wealth redistribution as i already said i have already destroyed you in this argument before.
Click to expand...

... Ok ... (you're going to have to define "wealth redistribution extremely narrowly to get away With that) but the principles are certainly is not compatible With Capitalism.

All the economic systems supported by God were much more egalitarian than anything around at the time.
 
How did cutting the taxes of everyone somehow magically transfer that wealth to "the rich". Was there some kind of transfer payment program that no one knew about?

RAMOSS said:
Yet, tax cuts, or going to 'supply side economics' also is wealth distribution, which basically moves wealth from the middle class to the rich. Oh, and 'free market economy' attempts also do that.
Click to expand...
 
Where in the bible did Jesus ever talk about setting up governmental institutions to ensure social justice, take care of the poor or compel charitable donations? He did say: "Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's". In other words he just didn't care about government.

His message as it relates to caring for the poor, the sick, the infirmed and the incarcerated was always a personal one. "I was hungry and YOU gave me something to eat" etc. etc. Not "I was hungry and you set up collectivist institutions to share wealth and resources".

Liberals (conservatives too, but mostly liberals) will try to twist Jesus' words into a theology that supports their position. Look at liberation theology as a perfect example. Liberals love the message of caring for the poor and they will take the shirt off your back to do so.
 
TobyOne said:
Where in the bible did Jesus ever talk about setting up governmental institutions to ensure social justice, take care of the poor or compel charitable donations? He did say: "Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's". In other words he just didn't care about government.

His message as it relates to caring for the poor, the sick, the infirmed and the incarcerated was always a personal one. "I was hungry and YOU gave me something to eat" etc. etc. Not "I was hungry and you set up collectivist institutions to share wealth and resources".

Liberals (conservatives too, but mostly liberals) will try to twist Jesus' words into a theology that supports their position. Look at liberation theology as a perfect example. Liberals love the message of caring for the poor and they will take the shirt off your back to do so.
Click to expand...

On the contrary.. that specificly said 'Obey your government'. That means 'Pay your taxes'.

As for 'collective institution to share wealth and resources', I am sure that concept didn't exist back then.

It amusing how far some people will go to insure that the poor stay poor.

As for caring for the poor, that 'take the shirt of your back' is totally a straw man, and shows a certain sociopath tendencies.
 
:mrgreen: Made my day.



RAMOSS said:
On the contrary.. that specificly said 'Obey your government'. That means 'Pay your taxes'.

As for 'collective institution to share wealth and resources', I am sure that concept didn't exist back then.

It amusing how far some people will go to insure that the poor stay poor.

As for caring for the poor, that 'take the shirt of your back' is totally a straw man, and shows a certain sociopath tendencies.
Click to expand...
 
TobyOne said:
Where in the bible did Jesus ever talk about setting up governmental institutions to ensure social justice, take care of the poor or compel charitable donations? He did say: "Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's". In other words he just didn't care about government.

His message as it relates to caring for the poor, the sick, the infirmed and the incarcerated was always a personal one. "I was hungry and YOU gave me something to eat" etc. etc. Not "I was hungry and you set up collectivist institutions to share wealth and resources".

Liberals (conservatives too, but mostly liberals) will try to twist Jesus' words into a theology that supports their position. Look at liberation theology as a perfect example. Liberals love the message of caring for the poor and they will take the shirt off your back to do so.
Click to expand...

He did, the Whole Kingdom of God was political, his mission statement in Luke 4 was declearing the Jubilee, it was absolutely political

The religious and the political were on in the same in that time.

Liberation theology is simply based around the preferential option for the poor, that society, including civil institutions, should care primarily for the wellbeing of the poor, this principle is firmly in scirpture in both the OT and the NT.
 
Here is a 2013 piece at NRO that a Catholic friend sent me only yesterday that puts into context (and both explains and criticizes) the Pope's economic views: National Review Online | Print
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I do not and cannot trust either the Catholics or Pope Francis...but that's a religious thing, and Francis is right about social justice, for that is indeed what Christ preached.
Click to expand...

Other than the whole Son of God stuff, which is just a footnote apparently.
 
RGacky3 said:
He did, the Whole Kingdom of God was political, his mission statement in Luke 4 was declearing the Jubilee, it was absolutely political

The religious and the political were on in the same in that time.

Liberation theology is simply based around the preferential option for the poor, that society, including civil institutions, should care primarily for the wellbeing of the poor, this principle is firmly in scirpture in both the OT and the NT.
Click to expand...

That's quite a stretch. In fact, Jesus seems to stress the exact opposite of your claim:

“My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world.” - John 18:36
 
Every time God established a society in the bible it had social justice elements.

The Israelite nation:
1. When God brought Joseph to power in Egypt, Joseph nationalized all industries, land, and means of production, creating a communist government (Genesis 47:13-26).
2. During the exile and into the Kingdom periods, God established "gleaning laws" (the first form of welfare) Leviticus 23:22.
3. God mandated a limited workweek (Leviticus 23:3)
4. God established a debt forgiveness program (Deuteronomy 15:1-2)
5. God requires people help the poor (Deuteronomy 15:7-10)

The prophet Isaiah makes it even more clear that social justice is a corporate responsibility shared by the community. In chapter 1 of his book, he begins by denouncing the sin of the nation and how meaningless their worship of God is because there is so much blood on their hands. He goes on to explain how to correct this:

Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.
“Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the Lord.

He goes on from there:
See how the faithful city
has become a prostitute!
She once was full of justice;
righteousness used to dwell in her—
but now murderers!
Your silver has become dross,
your choice wine is diluted with water.
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.

God, through the prophet Isaiah, is condemning his people for not taking up the cause of the destitute. He is condemning them, saying how can you burn all of this incense, offer these sacrifices, celebrate these religious festivals and expect me to be happy with you when there are fatherless children starving in your streets? Their blood is on your hands!

Jesus continues such teaching. Since this is extensively discussed all over the internet, I'll just point to a good summary so those interested in Jesus' specific teachings on social justice can read it: The Gospel of Jesus IS a Social Justice Gospel

Finally, the community of believers Paul and the Apostles established as the first church was a socialist community:
Acts 2:44-45
All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

Acts 4:32-35
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

The bible, from Old Testament to New is filled with appeals to social justice. Every government God has established, from the time of the patriarchs (Joseph) to the community of Christian believers in the first century, had strong social justice elements, in every case they were mandated by law or the threat of divine retribution. Furthermore Jesus' entire ministry revolved around teaching people to love God and love others, exhorting them to take up the cause of the orphans and widows (the needy in their time period) and to take up the responsibility of helping make things on Earth be as they are in Heaven. It never ceases to amaze me how some people can read the bible and not encounter all these things. The bible is pregnant with such passages.
 
Last edited:
CrabCake said:
Every time God established a society in the bible it had social justice elements.

The Israelite nation:
1. When God brought Joseph to power in Egypt, Joseph nationalized all industries, land, and means of production, creating a communist government (Genesis 47:13-26).
2. During the exile and into the Kingdom periods, God established "gleaning laws" (the first form of welfare) Leviticus 23:22.
3. God mandated a limited workweek (Leviticus 23:3)
4. God established a debt forgiveness program (Deuteronomy 15:1-2)
5. God requires people help the poor (Deuteronomy 15:7-10)
Click to expand...

1.yep it is usually a good idea when a famine is coming and food will be short to store and save food in the good years so that you will not be hungry in the lean one.
so that is what joseph was doing. not what you said.
2. that was usually the worst of the grain. the good grain grew in the middle of the field. It wasn't welfare as much as it was a tax. also if the people wanted the grain or what have you they actually had to get out in the field and pick it themselves. it wasn't just given to them. so they actually had to work and their payment was what they could glean.
3. Yep the sabbath was a holy day meant for rest as God rested on the 7th day.
4. yep but it only applied to the jewish people. if you were a foreigner living there then if your debt was canceled it was out of the kindness of the person.
5. Yep most people agree we should help the poor there is just a huge difference in how it should be done.

The prophet Isaiah makes it even more clear that social justice is a corporate responsibility shared by the community. In chapter 1 of his book, he begins by denouncing the sin of the nation and how meaningless their worship of God is because there is so much blood on their hands. He goes on to explain how to correct this:

Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.
“Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the Lord.

He goes on from there:
See how the faithful city
has become a prostitute!
She once was full of justice;
righteousness used to dwell in her—
but now murderers!
Your silver has become dross,
your choice wine is diluted with water.
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.

God, through the prophet Isaiah, is condemning his people for not taking up the cause of the destitute. He is condemning them, saying how can you burn all of this incense, offer these sacrifices, celebrate these religious festivals and expect me to be happy with you when there are fatherless children starving in your streets? Their blood is on your hands!
Click to expand...

Again the only difference is to how go about it. how about instead of having the government pay farmers not to grow crops we take the access crops and sell it at discounted prices to feed the poor? we could easily grow enough food in the US to feed everyone in it and no one would be starving. yet the government won't allow farmers to grow over a certain amount. in fact they pay them not too. yet we complain people go hungry.

Jesus continues such teaching. Since this is extensively discussed all over the internet, I'll just point to a good summary so those interested in Jesus' specific teachings on social justice can read it: The Gospel of Jesus IS a Social Justice Gospel
Click to expand...

Never once did Christ say to take from someone else to give it to someone else. which is what social justice is. it is the theft of ones property to give to someone else.

Finally, the community of believers Paul and the Apostles established as the first church was a socialist community:
Acts 2:44-45
All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

Acts 4:32-35
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
Click to expand...

again they did it out of their own free will with their own possessions. they didn't take from someone else.

The bible, from Old Testament to New is filled with appeals to social justice. Every government God has established, from the time of the patriarchs (Joseph) to the community of Christian believers in the first century, had strong social justice elements, in every case they were mandated by law or the threat of divine retribution. Furthermore Jesus' entire ministry revolved around teaching people to love God and love others, exhorting them to take up the cause of the orphans and widows (the needy in their time period) and to take up the responsibility of helping make things on Earth be as they are in Heaven. It never ceases to amaze me how some people can read the bible and not encounter all these things. The bible is pregnant with such passages.
Click to expand...

i think that this explains it way more accurately then i could.

What does the Bible say about social justice?
 
ludin said:
1.yep it is usually a good idea when a famine is coming and food will be short to store and save food in the good years so that you will not be hungry in the lean one.
so that is what joseph was doing. not what you said.
Click to expand...

No, he was done storing the food. What he was doing in those verses is selling the food to the populace in exchange for all of their land and property, which became the land and property of the Pharao (the government). He nationalized all land and property in Egypt and Canaan (with the exception of what was owned by the priesthood).

Genesis 47:14 And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, for the grain which they bought; and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house.
Genesis 47:16-17 Then Joseph said, “Give your livestock, and I will give you bread for your livestock, if the money is gone.” So they brought their livestock to Joseph, and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for the horses, the flocks, the cattle of the herds, and for the donkeys. Thus he fed them with bread in exchange for all their livestock that year.
Genesis 47:20-21 Then Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for every man of the Egyptians sold his field, because the famine was severe upon them. So the land became Pharaoh’s. And as for the people, he moved them into the cities, from one end of the borders of Egypt to the other end.

ludin said:
2. that was usually the worst of the grain. the good grain grew in the middle of the field. It wasn't welfare as much as it was a tax. also if the people wanted the grain or what have you they actually had to get out in the field and pick it themselves. it wasn't just given to them. so they actually had to work and their payment was what they could glean.
Click to expand...

Welfare is also paid for by taxes. So, you are correct, this is the same as saying they were taxing the wealthy in order to feed the poor; nowadays, we call that welfare.

The people did have to go pick it up, but they did not have to plant it, cultivate it, etc. They simply had to go pick up the fruits of somebody else's labors.


ludin said:
3. Yep the sabbath was a holy day meant for rest as God rested on the 7th day.
Click to expand...

Right. It is God who invented the idea that people should not be forced to work every day of the week (if you accept the bible as literal truth). Another term for this is a limited workweek.

ludin said:
4. yep but it only applied to the jewish people. if you were a foreigner living there then if your debt was canceled it was out of the kindness of the person.
Click to expand...

So? This is still a socialist policy, even if it applies only to citizens.

ludin said:
5. Yep most people agree we should help the poor there is just a huge difference in how it should be done.
how about instead of having the government pay farmers not to grow crops we take the access crops and sell it at discounted prices to feed the poor? we could easily grow enough food in the US to feed everyone in it and no one would be starving. yet the government won't allow farmers to grow over a certain amount. in fact they pay them not too. yet we complain people go hungry.
Click to expand...

This statement has nothing to do with the bible or the discussion at hand.

ludin said:
Never once did Christ say to take from someone else to give it to someone else. which is what social justice is. it is the theft of ones property to give to someone else.
Click to expand...
That it isn't what social justice is. Social justice is the recognition that we are responsible for what we do as a people and how we treat those in need and that we should, therefore, ensure that the society we create is one that is just. Jesus spoke extensively on this. Every time he used the expression "one another" or talked about what you should do for "your brothers" or "the least of these", he was teaching people what genuine Christian community looks like; the apostles recognized this, which is why the first Christian community, described in Acts, is one where people regularly sold their land and possessions in order to distribute the money to those in need.

ludin said:
again they did it out of their own free will with their own possessions. they didn't take from someone else.
Click to expand...

In a small community like that in acts, the penalty for not living according to the rules of that community is expulsion from that community. Acts isn't explicit about such a penalty, but some of Paul's letters are. So, if you were not willing to live according to the rules of the community, which we know included holding all property in common, you would likely face expulsion. At that point, you simply weren't considered a Christian any longer and were not welcomed in the community. Some of Paul's letters describe the process of casting such people out. So, while you may be able to say that people would give out of their own free will, it is also true that there was a penalty for those who did not adhere to the Christian standards in that community.

In a big community like a nation, it's impractical to say "if you won't pay taxes, then you are not an American and must leave". A penalty of expulsion doesn't make much sense when the community you are talking about is a nation. So, penalties end up being things like fines, garnishment of wages, etc. The end result is the same, communities have standards that members must abide by.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
And here is a review of Michael Novak's economics when it comes to Catholicism. | Michael Novak's Ethics of Buccaneer Capitalism (The Catholic Right, Thirty-nine in a Series).
Click to expand...
`
From your link. I agree with the sentiment (bold);

"American Catholicism doesn't need any more Novaks channeling Hayek and politically aligning with the religious right. Instead, it needs someone who puts the average worker-a far more important player in wealth creation than most stock holders-first. We need another Monsignor John A. Ryan."​
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I do not and cannot trust either the Catholics or Pope Francis...but that's a religious thing, and Francis is right about social justice, for that is indeed what Christ preached.
Click to expand...

He preached govt passing laws to force everyone to give their money to the govt?
 
CrabCake said:
No, he was done storing the food. What he was doing in those verses is selling the food to the populace in exchange for all of their land and property, which became the land and property of the Pharao (the government). He nationalized all land and property in Egypt and Canaan (with the exception of what was owned by the priesthood).

Genesis 47:14 And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, for the grain which they bought; and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house.
Genesis 47:16-17 Then Joseph said, “Give your livestock, and I will give you bread for your livestock, if the money is gone.” So they brought their livestock to Joseph, and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for the horses, the flocks, the cattle of the herds, and for the donkeys. Thus he fed them with bread in exchange for all their livestock that year.
Genesis 47:20-21 Then Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for every man of the Egyptians sold his field, because the famine was severe upon them. So the land became Pharaoh’s. And as for the people, he moved them into the cities, from one end of the borders of Egypt to the other end.
Click to expand...

yea people had to buy grain and they bought extra grain from surrounding people to help fill the storage so they would have enough. you are misinterpriting scripture to try and push your own agenda.

yes they had to pay for the grain that joseph had gathered. so if you are a farmer and the famine hit and you couldn't sell produce you had livestock.


Welfare is also paid for by taxes. So, you are correct, this is the same as saying they were taxing the wealthy in order to feed the poor; nowadays, we call that welfare.
Click to expand...

not really because for them to actually get the food they had to work for it. so it isn't anything like welfare. they didn't pay people to not work. these people actually had to work in order to get food. call it minimum wage.

The people did have to go pick it up, but they did not have to plant it, cultivate it, etc. They simply had to go pick up the fruits of somebody else's labors.
Click to expand...

it is still work. it might have been the least amount of work but still it is work trying to gather hay. ever work on a farm during hay season? i have. it isn't easy.

Right. It is God who invented the idea that people should not be forced to work every day of the week (if you accept the bible as literal truth). Another term for this is a limited workweek.
Click to expand...

i never said anything else.

So? This is still a socialist policy, even if it applies only to citizens.
Click to expand...

it didn't apply to every citizen. it only applied to the jewish people. so if you weren't jewish after 7 years i didn't have to cancel your debt.


This statement has nothing to do with the bible or the discussion at hand.
Click to expand...

Actually it does have a lot to do with the discussion. we pay farmers not to grow crops yet complain people go hungry.

That it isn't what social justice is. Social justice is the recognition that we are responsible for what we do as a people and how we treat those in need and that we should, therefore, ensure that the society we create is one that is just. Jesus spoke extensively on this. Every time he used the expression "one another" or talked about what you should do for "your brothers" or "the least of these", he was teaching people what genuine Christian community looks like; the apostles recognized this, which is why the first Christian community, described in Acts, is one where people regularly sold their land and possessions in order to distribute the money to those in need.



In a small community like that in acts, the penalty for not living according to the rules of that community is expulsion from that community. Acts isn't explicit about such a penalty, but some of Paul's letters are. So, if you were not willing to live according to the rules of the community, which we know included holding all property in common, you would likely face expulsion. At that point, you simply weren't considered a Christian any longer and were not welcomed in the community. Some of Paul's letters describe the process of casting such people out. So, while you may be able to say that people would give out of their own free will, it is also true that there was a penalty for those who did not adhere to the Christian standards in that community.

In a big community like a nation, it's impractical to say "if you won't pay taxes, then you are not an American and must leave". A penalty of expulsion doesn't make much sense when the community you are talking about is a nation. So, penalties end up being things like fines, garnishment of wages, etc. The end result is the same, communities have standards that members must abide by.
Click to expand...

why didn't you read the article i posted? social justice and the definition of social justice is taking from someone that you think has more and giving it to someone else. that is the very definition of social justice that is used today. it is the basis of socialism and communism. it is not biblical and can be found no where in scripture.
 
ludin said:
yea people had to buy grain and they bought extra grain from surrounding people to help fill the storage so they would have enough. you are misinterpriting scripture to try and push your own agenda.
Click to expand...

I'm not misrepresenting it. You are refusing to read it. Joseph took over all of the assets previously owned by individuals and handed them over to government control. It's right there in black and white.

Genesis 47:20-21 Then Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for every man of the Egyptians sold his field, because the famine was severe upon them. So the land became Pharaoh’s. And as for the people, he moved them into the cities, from one end of the borders of Egypt to the other end.

ludin said:
not really because for them to actually get the food they had to work for it. so it isn't anything like welfare. they didn't pay people to not work. these people actually had to work in order to get food. call it minimum wage.
Click to expand...

Harvesting is the kind of work the children would do. The real work is the plowing, the sowing, the cultivating, the removal of weeds and barbs, the protection from grazing animals, etc.

Saying that people had to work for it because they had to go pick it up is similar to saying that welfare recipients work for it because they have to go cash their check.

ludin said:
it didn't apply to every citizen. it only applied to the jewish people. so if you weren't jewish after 7 years i didn't have to cancel your debt.
Click to expand...
It is still a social justice policy, regardless of which restrictions were placed on it.

ludin said:
Actually it does have a lot to do with the discussion. we pay farmers not to grow crops yet complain people go hungry.
Click to expand...
This discussion is about what God has to say about social justice, assuming we take the bible seriously. You can try making a biblical argument then it might have something to do with our discussion.

ludin said:
social justice and the definition of social justice is taking from someone that you think has more and giving it to someone else.
Click to expand...
That is the way YOU choose to define it, but it is not THE definition and you are unlikely to find any serious scholarly article describing it in that way, let alone any dictionary or encyclopedia that strives for impartiality that will define it in that way. It's a definition that only you and people like you believe and that you require us to believe in order for your arguments against it to make sense. But it just isn't an accurate definition that anyone but you (and partisans like you) uses.

At best, even if you can convince people that your definition of redistribution of wealth is accurate, that is but one of many types of policies that can make up a social justice strategy. Minimum wage laws, for example, are a social justice policy that does not take money from anyone. Policies against child labor and regulations of safety in the workplace likewise do not take money from anyone's pockets yet they are social justice policies. Offering tax breaks for charitable donations is also a social justice policy, one that actually allows people to keep more of their money. Nationalizing an industry is a social justice policy and this can mean lining the pockets of the rich if you nationalize the industry by buying it from its current owners (which is one way that many countries have chosen to nationalize certain industries).

Your definition of social justice is actually a biased definition of redistribution of wealth. It ignores all social justice policies that do not involve redistribution of wealth and it pretends that the wider social structure doesn't exist. Nobody but you defines it that way.
 
Last edited:
American said:
He preached govt passing laws to force everyone to give their money to the govt?
Click to expand...

You believe that there should be no taxes at all? Because conservatives are right about one thing - ALL taxes are wealth redistribution.

So...should there be no taxes at all? Or maybe we should have Really Low effective taxes like most third world nations do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom