Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Standing up for the poor invites the Antichrist?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by ReformedApologist View Post
    As a Southern Baptist myself, I am irritated at some of the attitudes people have towards the SBC concerning that. They accuse people about not seeing the gospel message as important, they call anyone who stands up for social justice as a Marxist and other slanderous names. Jesus did say we are to preach the gospel, but we also are called to alleviate sufferings of the poor when we are able (Proverbs 31:8-9; Galatians 2:10; James 2:2-4; Matthew 25:35-40; 1st John 3:17-18). Some people just want to pit one against the other for some reason.
    John 13:35 By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.”
    1 John 3:16 By this we know what love is: Jesus laid down His life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.If you lavish attention on the man in fine clothes and say, “Here is a seat of honor,” but say to the poor man “You must stand,” or, “Sit at my feet,” 4have you not discriminated among yourselves
    Matthew 25:40 whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.’
    1 John 3:17 we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. 17If anyone with earthly possessions sees his brother in need ...

    Is some sort of pattern pattern apparent here?
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • #17
      My perception is that here in the U.S., "social justice" largely involves efforts to punish some so-called "privileged" classes to benefit other supposedly "victimized" classes.

      Because this involves punishing people who may in fact be guilty of nothing harmful toward the alleged victims, and doing so with no due process, I generally view "social justice" as the exact opposite of ACTUAL justice.
      Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

      Beige Federalist.

      Nationalist Christian.

      "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

      Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

      Proud member of the this space left blank community.

      Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

      Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

      Justice for Matthew Perna!

      Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
        I specifically said I didn't have that in mind, though.
        I was commenting on Cow Poke's post not yours.

        I was saying how it is easy to mix up the meanings. A Christian can talk about Social Justice and mean charity and love your neighbor, and someone else can be meaning don't eat chickens.

        Comment


        • #19
          For a lot of people, the term "social justice" itself is the issue, causing an automatic negative reaction. I think the phrase causes confusion at best and is best abandoned. It's never more than hand-wavingly defined. As NorrinRadd said, it's often used to refer to things that are actually injustice. And think it is a serious mistake to conflate charity with justice.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
            I had an exchange with another Christian today and I'm not sure why, but I'm really upset about this.

            This person was ranting about how the Southern Baptist Convention had been taken over by socialists pushing social justice. My stance is that the Bible does call for social justice - Micah and Amos specifically focused on the issue. This isn't "social justice" in the same sense that most modern liberals meant, but it does mean looking out for the poor and their being exploited, and it does mean looking out for widows in need. I made this point, making clear that I was not interested in modern liberalism's social justice.

            The response? These passages aren't really about social justice, they're about obeying God, and they're only there in the first place because Israel was a theocracy. Paul never mentions social justice, therefore, Christians must stay away from it, and in fact, involvement in any social justice leads to the one world government of Romans 13 and invites the Antichrist.
            I will agree with the other person that a Christian should practice social justice because it is the command of God. On the other hand, I agree with your definition of social justice. For me as a Christian, how society defines social justice is a mixed bag. On some issues, I think they're right and other issues I think their position is anti-Christian.

            I don't like the other's person position that these are only in the Bible because Israel is a theocracy. There is too much New Testament that indicates otherwise. On the other hand, there are days I think Christians take care of those in society at the expense of fellow church members.

            Any hand you use, this is a tough issue.
            "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

            "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

            Comment


            • #21
              Yes, I don't think it's coherent to entirely deny the existence of socio-economic exploitation in the Old Testament, especially because God seems to take an interest in condemning usury there (which is still a problem today, but not one that most people talk about).
              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Joel View Post
                For a lot of people, the term "social justice" itself is the issue, causing an automatic negative reaction.
                Bingo!

                I think the phrase causes confusion at best and is best abandoned. It's never more than hand-wavingly defined. As NorrinRadd said, it's often used to refer to things that are actually injustice. And think it is a serious mistake to conflate charity with justice.
                A quick Google search shows

                "social justice: justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.
                "individuality gives way to the struggle for social justice"


                I think it weaponizes the concept that "doing charity" needs to be forced on people against their will, which, by definition, is not charity at all. Hence, we have to have "social justice warriors".
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  I think the phrase causes confusion at best and is best abandoned. It's never more than hand-wavingly defined.
                  A quick Google search shows

                  "social justice: justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.
                  "individuality gives way to the struggle for social justice"
                  I'd say that's a good example of being hand-wavy. Does "in terms of" mean we're talking about a subset of justice? Or an application of justice? And it's unstated what those listed items have to do with justice, or what any of this adds to the concept of justice. Are we maybe saying that a particular distribution of them is (un)just, or that, for any given distribution there can be justice? Some people in this thread seem to think that "social justice" entails "standing up for the poor", but that doesn't follow from this definition.

                  And that definition is better than most things I find as I've tried to search around. There's even advocates of "social justice" that say things like,

                  "The enemy of social justice is precisely believing that the definition of it can be fixed in some way."
                  http://www.socialjusticesolutions.or...tice-part-one/

                  "there is no rigid rule set for it."
                  http://www.socialjusticesolutions.or...stice-part-ii/

                  "In reality social justice is what you make of it,"
                  http://www.socialjusticesolutions.or...ustice-part-v/

                  In which case there's no way to say whether you are for or against social justice or whether anything promotes or not. It seems like "social justice" is used merely to inoculate one's pet project against criticism, since how could anyone say they are against justice (or for injustice)? I've never seen anyone attempt to provide an argument that "social justice" is justice or that "social injustice" is injustice. It always seems to be assumed.

                  Nobel Laureate F. A. Hayek wrote a whole book The Mirage of Social Justice, writing "I perceived that...the term ‘social justice’ was entirely empty and meaningless."

                  I think it weaponizes the concept that "doing charity" needs to be forced on people against their will, which, by definition, is not charity at all. Hence, we have to have "social justice warriors".
                  I agree with you regarding forcing it by law.
                  I go further and say that even if it isn't forced, charity isn't justice. And that to label charity as "justice" actually rules out the possibility of charity. Justice is things like paying your contractual obligations. But nobody thinks you are being charitable by paying what you owe.

                  Comment

                  Related Threads

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                  35 responses
                  166 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Cow Poke  
                  Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                  4 responses
                  49 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                  Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                  10 responses
                  119 views
                  1 like
                  Last Post mikewhitney  
                  Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                  14 responses
                  71 views
                  3 likes
                  Last Post Cow Poke  
                  Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                  13 responses
                  59 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Cow Poke  
                  Working...
                  X