Reaching tentacles of the Social Justice movement

[Maximilian]

Seems coadie is having an inability to distinguish the biblical call for justice from the voting bloc of people he hates and disdains. What is this called... Psych 101 was too long ago.

Social justice = kissing lesbians? lol

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by kindofbelieve

It would vary from group to group (though I like the way you immediately decided that it would work for the 20 villagers and left the bigger number out altogether as well as the usage of the word village - which has a less modern conotation since we call such things communities these days). Each group of people would decide how their structure would work. Anarchy doesn't dictate that there will be no structure or leadership, it merely strips the power from the state (not as in Texas - but a government) and gives it to the individuals to do with what they wish.

People are different, they are individuals, and there are some 300 million in the geographical area of the US -- why does there have to be a one-size-fits-all solution?



Why do they have to become a state? Again, that's working from the assumption that the state is the only answer. There is another answer, or even multiple answers, if people are willing to actually give it serious study.

Quick reference to Romans 13: When a person begans a voluntary interaction with a group of people, then the leaders of that entity would still be ordained by God (there is the question as to what exactly ordained means as well - but that is non-issue in this statement). It isn't as though God sees the US government as the only one in place, nor will it be the last one ever -- Paul was speaking of leaders, which in his time would have been called rulers, in general who would be "the minister of God to thee for good"; they would not be "a terror to good works, but to the evil"; this does not mean that the leaders would be of the state.

In the end, I don't mind if someone wishes to have XYZ government program. In fact, I'm all for an individuals choice for that. To the point that if they wish to have a service they can write a check and send it. That is an individual wishing to have something and acting upon that desire to produce it.

Am I not allowed the same courtesy? In other words, if I don't wish to have XYZ government program, then shouldn't I have the same process available to me? To show my disapproval by NOT writing a check to the program? Probably not -- why? Simply because the individual has no place over the majority...

You see, I don't mind paying for various options in life - I merely want to have those things provided by people that I can pay or not pay depending on their ability to perform the duty. If they do a good job, I pay them what is due them - if they do not, I fire them. Not through bureaucracy, but through an actual "Your fired" that takes place in minutes; and hire their replacement. I want to have the choice to have the things I want and forego the things I don't.

For the record, and in keeping with the thread -- I have no issues what-so-ever with individual powered social justice.

I'll be offline for several days due to work and moving (I absolutely abhor moving). If you'd like to see a simple basis of where I am philosophically here is a YouTube that is just over 8 minutes that is a skeleton of it. If not, I have no issues with that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

I sense a greater capacity to reason with you. I'm just now realizing you and coadie aren't saying the same thing My apologies. I'll respond later...

[Maximilian]

Perseveration: the patient gets stuck on one idea or one thing and cannot move on from there

Sounds like "Social Justice" is a trigger word for some trauma in coadie's life. So we will use a different name to convey the same idea -- that God's creation, law and Spirit cry out for Justice. That we were all blessed to be a blessing, etc...

Secondly, Coadie, what seems to be the disconnect is the ability to hold to similar ideas and be able to distinguish them. For example, there are plenty on AFF that agree with your political ideas (as far as I can tell) about charity and social justice not being an exclusive matter of the state and reserved for individuals at their own volition. However, there are others that use a both/and approach. In some areas, justice is universal. Slavery abolishment. Sex trade. Women's rights. etc... Additionally, many feel the duty of the State is not to be the Moral Law giver, but it should also serve to protect the weak from the strong in terms of exploitation. What does that look like in policy? Well, you have Repubs and Dems that both agree with those sentiments but interpret them pragmatically different. No need to knock down the ideology when you really just don't care for the practical rally point. You are kicking against a point that is amazingly biblical and should be what you get passionate about. Distinguish between your political emotional areas and your heart that is supposed to be consumed by the Kingdom of God. I think our future conversations will go much further that way.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by coadie

The scriptures don't refer to Social justice. Criminal justice is not social justice.

3Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked

You need to have some home bible studies. ask your pastor.

None of the bible mentions social justice.

Are you looking for the idea that word represents or are you intending on searching for a modern word in an ancient text? Which is it?

Those scriptures are overwhelmingly in support of social justice. I'm glad you zoned in on the word "wicked." Who does God call the "wicked" in those contexts? Read it. No need to meet with your pastor. I trust you can read it for yourself.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Seems coadie is having an inability to distinguish the biblical call for justice from the voting bloc of people he hates and disdains. What is this called... Psych 101 was too long ago.

Social justice = kissing lesbians? lol

This is from St thomas Aquinas.

There are, then, four Cardinal Virtues, in the four principal powers used in moral actions: Prudence in the practical intellect, Justice in the rational appetite (will), Fortitude (Courage) in the irascible appetite, and Temperance in the concupiscible appetite. ( ST I-II, 61, 2)

It doesn't say SOCIAL justice. it just says justice.

Don't put words in there that are not in there.

Justice refers to civil laws.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by coadie

This is from St thomas Aquinas.





It doesn't say SOCIAL justice. it just says justice.

Don't put words in there that are not in there.

Justice refers to civil laws.

If you ask a lot of people to define social justice you’re going to get many different definitions. Definitions will be based on a variety of factors, like political orientation, religious background, and political and social philosophy.

This has been my point all along. The word "rapture" is not in the Bible, but we understand it's a word used to describe the "catching away" of the Church at the final resurrection. Don't let the word itself make you dizzy, think about what is meant by the word, which is what words are to do anyway: convey a meaning. Social = people. It's not hard to understand how this abstract concept of justice applies to people... it's people that are the exact subject of the scriptures I've referenced for you (and those are only SOME of the scriptures)

Fortunately, there is today a growing positive attitude among evangelicals/Christians towards social concern and social justice, an attitude for which we have outstanding examples such as Wilberforce, Barnardo, George Muller and William Quarrier.

[coadie]

Some dudes template for "Fundamental social Laws"

Basic Premises:
- The human spirit is fundamentally and inherently benevolent.

.
- All manifestations of life are inherently interconnected and interdependent.


Fundamental Intention:
- To improve the quality of life.

Fundamental Rule of Judgement:
- The greatest benefit and the minimal harm for the widest domains of life.

Freedoms:
- Any person is free to think, feel, act and express themselves in whichever manner they are able to choose with integrity.
- Any person is free to leave circumstances they don't choose to participate in.
Limitations:
- No person is allowed to deliberately and arbitrarily remove the possibility for others to think, feel, act or express themselves as they choose.
- No person is allowed to deliberately render common resources useless or unavailable.


Guidelines:
- Strive to affect others in ways they can comfortably experience.
- Strive to be tolerant of any experience.

Bible doesn't discuss social Laws as used in the vocabulary of the socialists today.

United Soviet Socialistic Republic has social laws. Social Justice is a meme in Russland.

Any person is free to leave circumstances they don't choose to participate in.

But they force benevolence in Obamascare and welfare.

True charity is unselfish. People give secretly with out seeking glory or credit. They avoid recognition. Social justice means taking from someone else (oppressor) and giving that to an oppressed (needy or poor) person. The thinking is the Oppresser took it from the poor person to begin with. Two wrongs to make a right.

[Maximilian]

First published in ALERT issue 8 April 1991:

There is no doubt whatever about the clear Biblical injunctions that impose a social responsibility upon the Christian, and especially a concern for the poor and underprivileged (as e.g. in James 2:14-16 and 1John 3:17, and numerous passages in the Old Testament). These do not, however, require us to follow headlong in the train of every person or organisation or body of opinion that claims to be promoting social justice. Not only has God clearly imposed social concern upon us in the Scriptures, but in them He has also given us guidelines to direct us.


What, then, is social justice in Biblical terms? "Justice" and "righteousness" are part of a way of life which God expects of us as His people (see e.g. Micah 6:8; Ps. 11:7; 1John 3:7). This stems from the kind of character which we possess, and is in turn the reflection of what God Himself is and how He acts (1John 3:7). Social justice is essentially the outworking of this way of life in our relationships with others. It is thus not an option that we may accept or avoid at our choice; it is a necessary part of our practical Christian living.

As I've previously stated this sense of mission toward justice are Christian imperatives. The question becomes, then, in a Democracy, these who seek justice, how should that be accomplished in a governmental system? The opinions vary. Some have libertarian viewpoints of government that says the best way for all people to have a sound system is through a limited government. Then there are liberals, who have an opinion that larger government will be best for us. These are opinions of government. That's all they are. A Christian can be a liberal or a conservative, and both have an attitude of social justice. They can fight to uphold the tenants of our great Declaration that "all men are created equal." We can be a voice of justice when social issues come up in the nation. A moral voice even. There's no need for liberal or conservative to try and interpret their ideas about government into their own specific governmental system. That's not the point of social justice. There are some who use that name that have an entirely different meaning. So instead of getting red-faced over the word, it's best to understand what is meant, and not boycott an entire word that has beautiful intentions and even theology behind it.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

If you ask a lot of people to define social justice you’re going to get many different definitions. Definitions will be based on a variety of factors, like political orientation, religious background, and political and social philosophy.

This has been my point all along. The word "rapture" is not in the Bible, but we understand it's a word used to describe the "catching away" of the Church at the final resurrection. Don't let the word itself make you dizzy, think about what is meant by the word, which is what words are to do anyway: convey a meaning. Social = people. It's not hard to understand how this abstract concept of justice applies to people... it's people that are the exact subject of the scriptures I've referenced for you (and those are only SOME of the scriptures)

Fortunately, there is today a growing positive attitude among evangelicals/Christians towards social concern and social justice, an attitude for which we have outstanding examples such as Wilberforce, Barnardo, George Muller and William Quarrier.

What is the latin word for social?

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by coadie

Some dudes template for "Fundamental social Laws"

Bible doesn't discuss social Laws as used in the vocabulary of the socialists today.

United Soviet Socialistic Republic has social laws. Social Justice is a meme in Russland.



But they force benevolence in Obamascare and welfare.

[B]True charity is unselfish. People give secretly with out seeking glory or credit. They avoid recognition. Social justice means taking from someone else (oppressor) and giving that to an oppressed (needy or poor) person. The thinking is the Oppresser took it from the poor person to begin with. Two wrongs to make a right.

In general I SOMEWHAT agree. Can you believe that? However, there is some sense of a corporate and very public justice. This is consisten with God making provision for landowners in the Bible who had to leave crop behind that was dropped for the poor, how debts were re-set every 7 years (just to give a couple examples). To say it's not at all biblical conveniently overlooks this.

Ending slavery was not going to happen by individuals declaring they would no longer have slaves. Slave owners would, to this day, continue slavery, as long as profits came in. It happened because this was an example of how we can collectively fight for social justice and be a moral voice.

Now, I think in a government our size, this can best be accomplished in smaller communities, than at a federal level. I also fear that we are too far past that point, to where globalization causes us to rethink these ideas. Governments spend money, with out without "social crusaders." Why not add a voice there asking for investments in areas where poverty has placed a chokehold around necks? Why not help heal the world? Have the debate. Have the conversation. But if you insist there is no role for government to extol justice, I think history would already prove you wrong and not only insist, but show you, that there is a place.