This is a hermanutical question. As I see it taught in the NT the laws of the OT that represent in any way Christ and His coming and sacrifice(ceremonial) have been fulfilled by Christ. There is debate of just how the poor are to be taken care of but I believe that charity is to be shown. But CH, we've disagreed about this before at great length.
What I found in my studies is that in Biblical Israel we see several methods of insuring social justice in regards to the poor.
1. There were laws entitling the poor to the right to glean from the harvest of land owners. (edges and dropped harvest).
2. There were three tithes in the OT. One was the poor tithe and it was used to stock the storehouse and then was distributed throughout the land to provide for the poor.
3. There were laws governing the land that required that it never be sold perpetually but that it would periodically, as prescribed in the law, return back to its original owner’s family line. Also a clan’s redeemer was entitled by law to buy back any sold property. This was designed to ensure that wealth not be aggregated into the hands of the few and thereby creating a permanent class of poor people.
This was the economy established by God for ancient Israel to protect the poor and vulnerable and to demonstrate God’s perspective regarding social and economic justice. This isn’t free market capitalism as most describe it today. This is more of an economic system based on community property with bartered stewardship. Also the social aspects of the gleaning and the poor tithe display a more social welfare or distributist philosophy.
If one searches the Scriptures regarding the poor and oppression most will see that oppression of the poor and needy are featured so prominently in Scripture it’s strange why more preachers never preach about it. Prophets rebuked the wealthy and magistrates of Israel for neglecting their social obligations to provide “justice” for the poor and the needy. The wealthy in Israel were rebuked for denying the poor their right to glean and the officials were rebuked for siding with the wealthy on the matter (the books of Amos and Malachi are good examples among many). The only sin mentioned more than oppression of the needy is pagan idolatry. The sin of oppressing the poor is mentioned more than adultery and homosexuality combined, yet in today’s world it seems that we’re so fixated on these sins that we ignore social injustice, relegating it to an issue to be addressed voluntarily as convinience presents itself.
This in mind, when it comes to economics, I feel the Democratic Party with it’s policies that are targeted at relieving the middle and lower classes of our society far more biblical as an economic approach. Others appear to be seeing this too. The more I speak to some deeply religious Democrats and read the latest books on conservatism put out by leading Christian ministers, the more I’m seeing a more “Liberal Dominionism” (for lack of a better term) focused on social justice and stewardship evolving. It may be that in another generation the Republicans will shift into becoming godless libertarians while the Democrats will become a more religious party focused on social justice. This might be the natural order of things. After all, when one survey’s the political landscape of Europe most Christian parties are left leaning on issues of economics. Britain’s poor tax and social welfare system was crafted by early evangelicals, in addition Canada’s universal health insurance system was launched by a Baptist minister become politician.
I think modern Conservatism in America is on the edge of loosing it’s monopoly on religion.
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
What I found in my studies is that in Biblical Israel we see several methods of insuring social justice in regards to the poor.
1. There were laws entitling the poor to the right to glean from the harvest of land owners. (edges and dropped harvest).
2. There were three tithes in the OT. One was the poor tithe and it was used to stock the storehouse and then was distributed throughout the land to provide for the poor.
3. There were laws governing the land that required that it never be sold perpetually but that it would periodically, as prescribed in the law, return back to its original owner’s family line. Also a clan’s redeemer was entitled by law to buy back any sold property. This was designed to ensure that wealth not be aggregated into the hands of the few and thereby creating a permanent class of poor people.
This was the economy established by God for ancient Israel to protect the poor and vulnerable and to demonstrate God’s perspective regarding social and economic justice. This isn’t free market capitalism as most describe it today. This is more of an economic system based on community property with bartered stewardship. Also the social aspects of the gleaning and the poor tithe display a more social welfare or distributist philosophy.
If one searches the Scriptures regarding the poor and oppression most will see that oppression of the poor and needy are featured so prominently in Scripture it’s strange why more preachers never preach about it. Prophets rebuked the wealthy and magistrates of Israel for neglecting their social obligations to provide “justice” for the poor and the needy. The wealthy in Israel were rebuked for denying the poor their right to glean and the officials were rebuked for siding with the wealthy on the matter (the books of Amos and Malachi are good examples among many). The only sin mentioned more than oppression of the needy is pagan idolatry. The sin of oppressing the poor is mentioned more than adultery and homosexuality combined, yet in today’s world it seems that we’re so fixated on these sins that we ignore social injustice, relegating it to an issue to be addressed voluntarily as convinience presents itself.
This in mind, when it comes to economics, I feel the Democratic Party with it’s policies that are targeted at relieving the middle and lower classes of our society far more biblical as an economic approach. Others appear to be seeing this too. The more I speak to some deeply religious Democrats and read the latest books on conservatism put out by leading Christian ministers, the more I’m seeing a more “Liberal Dominionism” (for lack of a better term) focused on social justice and stewardship evolving. It may be that in another generation the Republicans will shift into becoming godless libertarians while the Democrats will become a more religious party focused on social justice. This might be the natural order of things. After all, when one survey’s the political landscape of Europe most Christian parties are left leaning on issues of economics. Britain’s poor tax and social welfare system was crafted by early evangelicals, in addition Canada’s universal health insurance system was launched by a Baptist minister become politician.
I think modern Conservatism in America is on the edge of loosing it’s monopoly on religion.
I heard Daniel Schorr state that about every 20-24 years there is a massive shift from left to right and then it will go the other way. I think he might be correct.
__________________ "I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it."
One could also see an ancient form of affirmative action and protections of basic civil rights of minority races living within the Israelite community when one reviews laws protecting the rights and entitlements of the “stranger”. Again…that favors the Democratic Party. The more one looks deeply into the principles embodied in the law the more one realizes that the anarchist tendencies of Republican libertarianism are diametrically opposed to an ordered and just society as outlined by Jehovah in the Law.
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
I heard Daniel Schorr state that about every 20-24 years there is a massive shift from left to right and then it will go the other way. I think he might be correct.
I do too. I think that's because as it shifts right...it goes so far right it becomes extreme and is rejected. Same when it shifts left. I really do see Mr. Schorr as having an interesting point.
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
I disagree...they're all bad guys. The question is...who's telling the truth? Obama has the most sincere motives. The others are only out for power or to be pawns for special interests.
an honest liberal is no better than a lying conservitive.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
You don't think Obama wants power or is a pawn for special interests? Of course he does and is.
I don't think he has sincere motives. He's just another politician. And quite frankly, I don't appreciate him referring to his grandma as a "typical white person." I think he has absorbed racist ideals from his racist pastor, and quiet little comments like that illustrate it.
I don't like the other candidates any better, so when faced with a lose-lose situation I'll probably vote Republican. Well, I guess I'll have to change that to a "will vote."
I'm not willing to subject our country to 4-8 years of Democratic leadership just to prove a point to the Republican party.
MissBratt, trying using the term "typical black person" in a crowd of black people and see what you get! LOL!
You are 100% correct. he has absorbed racist ideals and these comments perfectly illustrate it.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
an honest liberal is no better than a lying conservitive.
I disagree.
Because while one may be liberal and espousing policies that relieve the poor and the working class and favor greater personal liberties…if they’re honest about it you know they will at least try to follow through with their stated intentions and agenda.
However, one can claim to be a conservative and espouse policies that relieve the wealthy and industrious and favor restrictions on personal liberties…but if their lying you don’t know what they will do. You don’t know who they are working for. You don’t know if they even intend to follow through with their stated intentions and agenda. You’re buying a bill of goods without even knowing what you’re getting.
So the honest liberal would be more predictable and attempt to follow through with his intentions. But the lying conservative will pull a fast one on ya in favor of those who are behind the scenes and you’ll loose.
I think this demonstrates the degree of social conditioning being performed on the conservative voter. They have conservative voters conditioned to go as far as to say, “I don’t care if they can’t be trusted, they say they’re conservative. So I support them.”
I think that’s a dangerous thing. If they're lying they might not even be conservatives...they might be fascists in disguise.
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
Because while one may be liberal and espousing policies that relieve the poor and the working class and favor greater personal liberties…if they’re honest about it you know they will at least try to follow through with their stated intentions and agenda.
However, one can claim to be a conservative and espouse policies that relieve the wealthy and industrious and favor restrictions on personal liberties…but if their lying you don’t know what they will do. You don’t know who they are working for. You don’t know if they even intend to follow through with their stated intentions and agenda. You’re buying a bill of goods without even knowing what you’re getting.
So the honest liberal would be more predictable and attempt to follow through with his intentions. But the lying conservative will pull a fast one on ya in favor of those who are behind the scenes and you’ll loose.
I think this demonstrates the degree of social conditioning being performed on the conservative voter. They have conservative voters conditioned to go as far as to say, “I don’t care if they can’t be trusted, they say they’re conservative. So I support them.”
I think that’s a dangerous thing. If they're lying they might not even be conservatives...they might be fascists in disguise.
you disagree? well there is a first class shocker! LOL!
PS the following isnt possible
espousing policies that relieve the poor and the working class and favor greater personal liberties
these items are in direct conflict. relieving the poor by fiat, requires restricting the personal liberties of the middle and upper class. period.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Linear Mode
