Social Justice?

[seer]

In my experience, "social justice" is almost always the opposite of real justice. For instance, Officer Darren Wilson shoots Michael "The Gentle Thug" Brown in self-defense, and the grand jury finds no reasonable grounds to charge Officer Wilson with a crime. This is justice. "Social justice" demands that Officer Wilson be punished anyway simply because he's white while the citizens riot and burn their community to the ground.

Whenever anyone asks for "social justice", what they're really asking for is an unfair (and in some cases illegal) advantage for one demographic or another.

That is often the case.

[Sam]

No Sam, I putting the Jubilee and other such laws in context. There are not universe commands, they had to do with a specific people at a specific time. And only applied to those under the Covenant. This is not license for any government to take what it will for any cause it deems worthy.

The point being that it is not necessarily true that it is wrong, according to biblical principles, for a state to "force" one person to give up his wealth for the benefit of another. Meaning that one has to explain why it is wrong in a given situation. To date, you haven't done this (so far as I can see). Rather, you rely on it being axiomatically immoral for the state to "force" someone to participate in a redistribution of wealth.

But it's not axiomatic, as biblical laws demonstrate. Nor is the "undeserving poor" a sufficient reason, as "earning it" was not part of Jubilee law and therefore not a necessary factor.

No that is completely false. Execution laws most definitely furthered social welfare by removing sinners and preventing them from infecting the larger social body. And the judgement of unrepentant sinners is just as fundamental to the faith as any anything else. The problem is Sam that you pick and choose. You like the Jubilee and think it is right and moral - but why isn't the execution of sinners just as right and moral? And thankfully we know the New Testament model for giving. To give cheerfully and not under compulsion.

You misunderstand. I can determine, rightfully, that execution laws today

[KingsGambit]

It seems to me that a number of posters are insisting on using a most caricatured version of the phrase "social justice". While bringing up Occupy protesters who want $20 minimum wages and Al Sharpton are helpful for scoring rhetorical cheap points, the fact is that nobody here is actually supporting these forms of "social justice", so it's a waste of time to try to argue against these.

[Sam]

It seems to me that a number of posters are insisting on using a most caricatured version of the phrase "social justice". While bringing up Occupy protesters who want $20 minimum wages and Al Sharpton are helpful for scoring rhetorical cheap points, the fact is that nobody here is actually supporting these forms of "social justice", so it's a waste of time to try to argue against these.

I'd go for a $20 minimum wage ...

Well, maybe not really. I -did- just see an article that mentioned the minimum wage would be over $25/hour now, if it had kept pace with both inflation and productivity increases since 1968 ....

[seer]

The point being that it is not necessarily true that it is wrong, according to biblical principles, for a state to "force" one person to give up his wealth for the benefit of another. Meaning that one has to explain why it is wrong in a given situation. To date, you haven't done this (so far as I can see). Rather, you rely on it being axiomatically immoral for the state to "force" someone to participate in a redistribution of wealth.

No Sam, it is not necessarily wrong in a God ordained Theocracy. That is a key and fundamental difference. Again, this is not license for any government to take what it will for any cause it thinks worthy.

You misunderstand. I can determine, rightfully, that execution laws today are unnecessary (and even grossly unnecessary, wasteful, and immoral) for social welfare. But you'd be hard pressed to determine that redistribution of wealth downward is unnecessary. A "preference for the poor" was central to Christ's message and ministry — execution laws, if anything, are contradicted by Christ's message.

Sam, were the execution laws just and moral - yes or no? And I would say that forced charity is clearly contradicted by Paul:

Now this I say, he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

God loves the cheerful giver, the one who freely decides what to give, not the one who is forced by law.

I don't have a problem picking and choosing, so long as the picking and choosing is done rationally and with a respectful, if not venerating, eye to the text. You do the same, but without rationality — if you applied it, you would not be arguing that even our modern state axiomatically has no right to "force" you to redistribute wealth against your will. Your putting political ideology in front clear biblical precedent here.

—Sam

I didn't say that the state did not have the right - though Constitutionally you would be hard pressed to make the case. But that you can not apply Mosaic Law and the rules under a Theocracy to make your case.

[Paprika]

I'd just like to say this is a momentous day: I actually agree with Paprika and support what he has said. That blizzard you guys got must have reached into hell.

Rejoicing would be premature.

Then it is in line with the concept of Jubilee, if not an exact match. The "modern sense" of social justice is therefore not necessarily dissimilar to the biblical sense of social justice, at least in the aspect of wealth redistribution.

The concept of "social justice", if not how it's frequently applied, is biblical (Amos 5:24). I don't think this has much of anything to do with redistributing wealth.

Sure, social justice in theory has non-null intersection with Scripture. But so does Sharia law and Marxism.

The sharing of some similarities with the Scriptural does not in itself commend the whole. After all, the best lies contain some truth.

[KingsGambit]

Rejoicing would be premature.




Sure, social justice in theory has non-null intersection with Scripture. But so does Sharia law and Marxism.

The sharing of some similarities with the Scriptural does not in itself commend the whole. After all, the best lies contain some truth.

To repeat myself for approximately the eleventh time, I am not commending mainstream "social justice" theory.

[Sam]

Rejoicing would be premature.




Sure, social justice in theory has non-null intersection with Scripture. But so does Sharia law and Marxism.

The sharing of some similarities with the Scriptural does not in itself commend the whole. After all, the best lies contain some truth.

[Adrift]

Do you really want to go back to the Mosaic civil law Sam? Should we also start executing homosexuals, adulterers and Sabbath breakers?

If the point that you're making is that Christians living under the New Covenant are no longer under the civil and ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant, I personally couldn't agree more. Christians are under a new administration under Christ. I think the main point in bringing up things like Jubilee and gleaning, though, is not that anyone necessarily wants to see these exact laws reinstated, its to point out that, yeah, there's a Biblical precedent for society taking care of those in need. In Galatians 3 we read that even though we are no longer under the law, the law was a tutor, or a schoolmaster, and a major part of Jesus's ministry was concerned with opening people's eyes to the spirit or heart of the law rather than legalistically holding onto the letter of it, and so I think the same is true of those who are pointing out gleaning and Jubilee. Its not the letter of those laws they're necessarily concerned with, its the spirit of it.

I find it surprising that Christians in the US get some of the most resistance to caring for those truly in need by fellow Christians. I think if one were completely unfamiliar with the political debate in the States, Christians would be the last group of people one would expect resistance from. I think it would be amazing if Christians could and did take care of all of those in need, but the unfortunate truth is that there are far too few Christians who can supply that need who will supply that need. And as I mentioned earlier, those truly in need don't care where it comes from, a stranger, a friend, their government, a charity, or their local Christian community, as long as they can feed their children, and have some place warm and dry to stay tonight.

It occurs to me that even if it were accurate that under the New Covenant only charitable giving should support the poor, and that Christians should be leading the way in this, its strange that Christians in the States continue to struggle to enact other laws that they expect non-Christians to abide by. Christians in the States historically lead the way in fighting for laws that support the sanctity of life in the abortion and euthanasia debates, laws that support a traditional view on the sanctity of marriage, and the like. They expect and desire that non-Christian members of society conform to the Christian view, yet Christians (not including deranged exceptions) never go so far as to suggest that pro-abortionists or pro-gay marriage proponents be stoned to death as they might under the Old Covenant. So I don't think the argument flies that, if one is for the Old Covenant principle that society ought to care for those in need, they should also necessarily be for the execution of homosexuals, adulterers and Sabbath breakers.

Just to reiterate, when I refer to the poor, or to those in need, I refer to those who are legitimately unable to provide for their themselves or their family, whether that be because of physical limitation or lack of employment opportunity. Those who have the ability to work, and provide for their families, and select not to do so, should not expect to receive aid.

[Mountain Man]

Please identify which of these premises is factually incorrect:

P1: Jubilee required the forgiveness of debt, the freeing of slaves and the redistribution of land.
P2: Owed debt is an economic asset.
P3: Slaves are an economic asset.
P4: Land is an economic asset.
P5: Economic assets are equivalent to wealth.
C1: Jubilee required the redistribution of wealth.

Circular reasoning fallacy. The conclusion of the argument is assumed in its first premise.

[Paprika]

the US Conservative bloc.

Who are really Liberals; they merely value a different freedom, that to (individually) handle as much of 'their' money as they wish.

On a fundamental level, I routinely see a level of cognitive dissonance that prohibits folks from even acknowledging that economic redistribution was an inherent part of biblical law and a keystone of Christ's ministry. Disabusing the notion that such redistribution must be charitably given and not compulsory through the state is my overarching theme here.

As someone who's tried this, I do wish you all the best.

Whether something closer to Jubilee and related laws than the US has now is good 21st policy is probably too complex when there's so much stumbling over that basic first step.

Fair enough, this thread may not be the best place for it.

Suffice to say that both biblical and "modern day" usage of the term "social justice" legitimately incorporates economic redistribution from the wealthy (or wealthier) to the poor (or poorer).

What do you mean by legitimate?

[Adrift]

Circular reasoning fallacy. The conclusion of the argument is assumed in its first premise.

No it doesn't.

[Paprika]

To repeat myself for approximately the eleventh time, I am not commending mainstream "social justice" theory.

Perhaps you have expressed this position in another thread; I don't see it anywhere else in this one.

[seer]

If the point that you're making is that Christians living under the New Covenant are no longer under the civil and ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant, I personally couldn't agree more. Christians are under a new administration under Christ. I think the main point in bringing up things like Jubilee and gleaning, though, is not that anyone necessarily wants to see these exact laws reinstated, its to point out that, yeah, there's a Biblical precedent for society taking care of those in need. In Galatians 3 we read that even though we are no longer under the law, the law was a tutor, or a schoolmaster, and a major part of Jesus's ministry was concerned with opening people's eyes to the spirit or heart of the law rather than legalistically holding onto the letter of it, and so I think the same is true of those who are pointing out gleaning and Jubilee. Its not the letter of those laws they're necessarily concerned with, its the spirit of it.

I find it surprising that Christians in the US get some of the most resistance to caring for those truly in need by fellow Christians. I think if one were completely unfamiliar with the political debate in the States, Christians would be the last group of people one would expect resistance from. I think it would be amazing if Christians could and did take care of all of those in need, but the unfortunate truth is that there are far too few Christians who can supply that need who will supply that need. And as I mentioned earlier, those truly in need don't care where it comes from, a stranger, a friend, their government, a charity, or their local Christian community, as long as they can feed their children, and have some place warm and dry to stay tonight.

It occurs to me that even if it were accurate that under the New Covenant only charitable giving should support the poor, and that Christians should be leading the way in this, its strange that Christians in the States continue to struggle to enact other laws that they expect non-Christians to abide by. Christians in the States historically lead the way in fighting for laws that support the sanctity of life in the abortion and euthanasia debates, laws that support a traditional view on the sanctity of marriage, and the like. They expect and desire that non-Christian members of society conform to the Christian view, yet Christians (not including deranged exceptions) never go so far as to suggest that pro-abortionists or pro-gay marriage proponents be stoned to death as they might under the Old Covenant. So I don't think the argument flies that, if one is for the Old Covenant principle that society ought to care for those in need, they should also necessarily be for the execution of homosexuals, adulterers and Sabbath breakers.

No that does not make sense. If one Old Testament law is just and moral why not the other? Executing particular sinners was moral and just and I assume that God saw it as a benefit for the larger society.

Just to reiterate, when I refer to the poor, or to those in need, I refer to those who are legitimately unable to provide for their themselves or their family, whether that be because of physical limitation or lack of employment opportunity. Those who have the ability to work, and provide for their families, and select not to do so, should not expect to receive aid.

And that is the a main sticking point Adrift. I live in a poor neighbor, and many of my neighbors are on "State." They often use their money for booze and drugs and are certainly able to work. And I also believe that Christians should be generous, our little church does quite a bit to feed and cloth the needy.

[Sam]

Circular reasoning fallacy. The conclusion of the argument is assumed in its first premise.