Social Justice?

[lilpixieofterror]

Despite the ideological confidence demonstrated by many opponents to social welfare programs, they are generally geared towards, and quite successful at, "giving people the means to care for themselves" through additional and necessary support. The problem you're hitting your head against here is that both Jubilee and modern state-run social welfare programs have the same fundamental tenet that you've explicitly rejected: the "forced" distribution of wealth to others, regardless of whether they have "earned it" or not.

And yet Sam, all of us could point to examples of people who are just living off the system and not even making an attempt to provide for themselves, so no... these welfare programs have not created people that are capable of caring for themselves. In many cases, they create a dependent class, that is always dependent on the governments dime and are incapable/unwilling to care for themselves. Sure, there's people who need it and do benefit from it, but there's many who do not need it and do not benefit from it, at all. This is the problem with social welfare programs of the modern era. They are no comparison to the jubilee, with appears to be about giving people the means to care for themselves. A whole different ball game and something you appear not to be capable of figuring out.

Jubilee debt cancellation was not something different than Sabbath year debt cancellation — the two things didn't "stack" but their provisions were merged on Jubilee years, as every Jubilee year is also a Sabbath year.

So I ask the question again, what sort of affect, would this have on the economy of the era? Do you think it would be fair for debaters to lose their investment and their money all the time? How would they be able to function, without a means to collect the debts owed to them? Could the reasons for these debt cancellations be something else and have effects you refuse to see because you want your version to be true, so will just ignore that laws have consequences to them?

I never advocated here for disregarding parts of the Bible on personal preference.

Sure you have, when Seer asked you about if we should follow other provisions of the OT, you seemed to have said that you don't have to because you don't believe the Bible is without error. So how did you determine that parts of the OT, that dealt with stoning those caught in adultery are 'in error', but parts dealing with economics are not without error?

Your consistent pejorative allegations of others introducing false assumptions could use some introspection here. That said, I have noted that those who hold to inerrancy and infallibility have put themselves into a much narrower range of options when it comes to interpreting Scripture. It's not hypocritical for someone who enjoys a drink now and then to note that a professed teetotaler is bound to avoid alcohol altogether. If someone who professes that the Bible is inerrant and infallible finds the logical consequences of such a position too burdensome, I can't be held responsible for the box they put themselves in, can I?

There is no false assumptions Sam, I'm just finding your whole position rather entertaining. You seem to want other people to hold absolutely to part of the Bible that you personally approve of, but want to ignore other parts of it. What sort of method did you use to determine what part of the Bible should be listened to and what part shouldn't be? I'm a fan of trying to understand the Bible, to the people it was written to, the consequences of the laws it details out, and what it could tell us about today. These are my stated goals, so do tell... how did you determine that the parts that say to stone those caught in adultery are in error and the part about the jubilee should be listened to? What sort of methodology, did you end up using?

[Joel]

I'm no expert on OT law, but here's my take. Someone please correct me if I'm committing any heresy.

It would seem that it is not unjust for God to take what is one human's to give to another, because God is the ultimate owner of everything. So if God were to do so or to specifically order other humans to do so, that would not be unjust. On the other hand, for one or more humans to do it on their own without a special dispensation from God, then that's theft (unjust).

It further seems to me that if the OT law required one party to take from a second party to give to a third party, then it is a case of a special command to those Hebrews in that situation. For any other humans to engage in such taking, without special authorization/command from God, it is theft and necessarily immoral.

So I would conclude that today it is immoral for states to engage in the practice, in the same sense that it is immoral for me to steal your car.

[Darth Executor]

Despite the ideological confidence demonstrated by many opponents to social welfare programs, they are generally geared towards, and quite successful at, "giving people the means to care for themselves" through additional and necessary support.

In an environment where heathen morality reigns supreme (unlike the OT). Unless you want to import the entire OT system, including its harsh punishment for moral failures (like pre-marital sex) the two cannot be compared. The social effects of government welfare in a liberal hegemony are devastating.

I never advocated here for disregarding parts of the Bible on personal preference.

That's funny considering your persistent homophiliac tendencies. Watching people who think gays have the right to host weddings in your hose suddenly go to the mat for OT morality is a barrel of laughs.

[Darth Executor]

I'm no expert on OT law, but here's my take. Someone please correct me if I'm committing any heresy.

It would seem that it is not unjust for God to take what is one human's to give to another, because God is the ultimate owner of everything. So if God were to do so or to specifically order other humans to do so, that would not be unjust. On the other hand, for one or more humans to do it on their own without a special dispensation from God, then that's theft (unjust).

It further seems to me that if the OT law required one party to take from a second party to give to a third party, then it is a case of a special command to those Hebrews in that situation. For any other humans to engage in such taking, without special authorization/command from God, it is theft and necessarily immoral.

So I would conclude that today it is immoral for states to engage in the practice, in the same sense that it is immoral for me to steal your car.

Unfortunately, one of your premises (that property and thus theft is defined like a libertarian would define it) is both unproven and highly unlikely considering that particular idea only arose much, much later.

[Sam]

And yet Sam, all of us could point to examples of people who are just living off the system and not even making an attempt to provide for themselves, so no... these welfare programs have not created people that are capable of caring for themselves. In many cases, they create a dependent class, that is always dependent on the governments dime and are incapable/unwilling to care for themselves. Sure, there's people who need it and do benefit from it, but there's many who do not need it and do not benefit from it, at all. This is the problem with social welfare programs of the modern era. They are no comparison to the jubilee, with appears to be about giving people the means to care for themselves. A whole different ball game and something you appear not to be capable of figuring out.

You're making a pretty obvious logical error here ... let's call it the "one bad apple" fallacy. Because you say that you can provide examples where social welfare programs have not produced people who become self-sufficient or "earn" their welfare in some way, the programs "have not created people that are capable of caring for themselves." (emphasis added). Allow me to use the same logic to show why this is terribly flawed:

P1: The army exists to develop men and women into valuable, productive service members in defense of the nation.
P2: There are examples where army personnel have not become valuable, productive service members.
C1: Therefore, the army has not developed men and women into valuable productive service members.

Naturally, you'd disagree with the conclusion, pointing out that it is, to be blunt, stupid to argue that because a program doesn't produce perfect results, it doesn't produce any results or even produce the intended results most of the time. You'd counter that just because Apple might release one defective iPhone out of a shipment of 500,000 devices, that doesn't mean that the whole shipment (or all iPhones) are defective.

Simple logic, for better or worse.

Sure you have, when Seer asked you about if we should follow other provisions of the OT, you seemed to have said that you don't have to because you don't believe the Bible is without error. So how did you determine that parts of the OT, that dealt with stoning those caught in adultery are 'in error', but parts dealing with economics are not without error?

No, that wasn't the argument I made. Go back, read it again, and summarize it correctly if you want to may hay of it or accuse me of hypocrisy.

There is no false assumptions Sam, I'm just finding your whole position rather entertaining. You seem to want other people to hold absolutely to part of the Bible that you personally approve of, but want to ignore other parts of it. What sort of method did you use to determine what part of the Bible should be listened to and what part shouldn't be? I'm a fan of trying to understand the Bible, to the people it was written to, the consequences of the laws it details out, and what it could tell us about today. These are my stated goals, so do tell... how did you determine that the parts that say to stone those caught in adultery are in error and the part about the jubilee should be listened to? What sort of methodology, did you end up using?

[lilpixieofterror]

You're making a pretty obvious logical error here ... let's call it the "one bad apple" fallacy.

Or we could call it the 'How Dare You Disagree With Sam' Fallacy, since that would be more accurate.

Because you say that you can provide examples where social welfare programs have not produced people who become self-sufficient or "earn" their welfare in some way, the programs "have not created people that are capable of caring for themselves." (emphasis added). Allow me to use the same logic to show why this is terribly flawed:

P1: The army exists to develop men and women into valuable, productive service members in defense of the nation.
P2: There are examples where army personnel have not become valuable, productive service members.
C1: Therefore, the army has not developed men and women into valuable productive service members.

You should really not use arguments, about the military, to a military member. Your second premise, is false, since I've known a number of useless people, within the military, that end up with serious discipline issues and often are shown the door because of these started issues. Anyway, the problem with most social welfare, of the modern era, is that it seems to help so few and ends up creating an entire class of dependence, where people either don't want to work for themselves or are just incapable of doing it because they are dependent on the system to provide for them and don't want to change it. The military, has a tendency to cut those who don't pull their weight because it effects unit cohesion and causes serious problems with the unit. The military is not a Beetle Bailey comic, Sam.

Naturally, you'd disagree with the conclusion, pointing out that it is, to be blunt, stupid to argue that because a program doesn't produce perfect results, it doesn't produce any results or even produce the intended results most of the time. You'd counter that just because Apple might release one defective iPhone out of a shipment of 500,000 devices, that doesn't mean that the whole shipment (or all iPhones) are defective.

This is yet, another strawman Sam because, by and far, it doesn't just give us a hand full of people who end up being dependent, it gives us lots of people who end up being overly dependent on the government to provide for their needs. Can you actually prove that these social welfare programs are as great as you seem to claim they are? I could find you plenty of people, on food stamps, who shouldn't be or plenty of people collecting welfare checks that shouldn't be collecting them to start with. The sad thing is, they are within legal bounds to collect these things to begin with and really are not, defrauding the system, because what they are doing is perfectly legal to start with. There's even crooked doctors and lawyers out there, that will help you stay on the system and tell you how to take advantage of the system. This isn't even counting the facts Sam. The stated goal, of the military, is to precisely create people that do not end up being overly dependent. Is that the goal of the modern state welfare system?

Simple logic, for better or worse.

Your logic is flawed, try again.

No, that wasn't the argument I made. Go back, read it again, and summarize it correctly if you want to may hay of it or accuse me of hypocrisy.

So you don't want to answer? I understand, it must be hard to have to deal with two different systems. So what part of the Bible should we listen to and what parts of it shouldn't we listen to?

You might want to head back and reread what I originally wrote to seer, as I actually covered this question before. That you would be completely unaware of it demonstrates a lack of through reading. Paired with an abrasive confidence in accusing others of various wrongdoings, it makes me believe you're not interested in seriously evaluating the positions laid out in the thread.

Of course I lack reading abilities, I dare disagree with Sam and ask him to back up his positions, so I must not of read what Sam said well. Go ahead, tell the specific method that I could use to determine what parts of the Bible I should listen to and what parts I shouldn't listen to. Do you actually have an answer or do you just want to throw out some more blind accusations, without actually answering the question?

[Adrift]

That said, I have noted that those who hold to inerrancy and infallibility have put themselves into a much narrower range of options when it comes to interpreting Scripture. It's not hypocritical for someone who enjoys a drink now and then to note that a professed teetotaler is bound to avoid alcohol altogether. If someone who professes that the Bible is inerrant and infallible finds the logical consequences of such a position too burdensome, I can't be held responsible for the box they put themselves in, can I?

—Sam

For the record, I think its perfectly logical to hold to some form of Biblical inerrancy and also support social welfare.

By the way, out of curiosity, why do you sign off in your posts. I see others do this too, but, you know, your name in the upper left corner of each post so it shouldn't be so hard to figure out who's who.

[Sam]

Or we could call it the 'How Dare You Disagree With Sam' Fallacy, since that would be more accurate.



You should really not use arguments, about the military, to a military member. Your second premise, is false, since I've known a number of useless people, within the military, that end up with serious discipline issues and often are shown the door because of these started issues. Anyway, the problem with most social welfare, of the modern era, is that it seems to help so few and ends up creating an entire class of dependence, where people either don't want to work for themselves or are just incapable of doing it because they are dependent on the system to provide for them and don't want to change it. The military, has a tendency to cut those who don't pull their weight because it effects unit cohesion and causes serious problems with the unit. The military is not a Beetle Bailey comic, Sam.



This is yet, another strawman Sam because, by and far, it doesn't just give us a hand full of people who end up being dependent, it gives us lots of people who end up being overly dependent on the government to provide for their needs. Can you actually prove that these social welfare programs are as great as you seem to claim they are? I could find you plenty of people, on food stamps, who shouldn't be or plenty of people collecting welfare checks that shouldn't be collecting them to start with. The sad thing is, they are within legal bounds to collect these things to begin with and really are not, defrauding the system, because what they are doing is perfectly legal to start with. There's even crooked doctors and lawyers out there, that will help you stay on the system and tell you how to take advantage of the system. This isn't even counting the facts Sam. The stated goal, of the military, is to precisely create people that do not end up being overly dependent. Is that the goal of the modern state welfare system?



Your logic is flawed, try again.



So you don't want to answer? I understand, it must be hard to have to deal with two different systems. So what part of the Bible should we listen to and what parts of it shouldn't we listen to?


Of course I lack reading abilities, I dare disagree with Sam and ask him to back up his positions, so I must not of read what Sam said well. Go ahead, tell the specific method that I could use to determine what parts of the Bible I should listen to and what parts I shouldn't listen to. Do you actually have an answer or do you just want to throw out some more blind accusations, without actually answering the question?

You wrote:

And yet Sam, all of us could point to examples of people who are just living off the system and not even making an attempt to provide for themselves, so no... these welfare programs have not created people that are capable of caring for themselves.

[Psychic Missile]

LPoT never seriously and thoughtfully considers other people's arguments. You should drop it.

[Sam]

For the record, I think its perfectly logical to hold to some form of Biblical inerrancy and also support social welfare.

I do too — I would argue that a position of inerrancy pretty much dictates support of social welfare, in fact. That's the thrust of my argument there: seer would have had me, who holds a position that the Bible is not inerrant or infallible, to what he considered to be biblical diktats. My point was even if I were as beholden to the text as an inerrantist, that would not absolve the inerrantist from the problem posed by Jubilee law. Just the opposite, in fact!

—Sam

[Adrift]

I'm no expert on OT law, but here's my take. Someone please correct me if I'm committing any heresy.

It would seem that it is not unjust for God to take what is one human's to give to another, because God is the ultimate owner of everything. So if God were to do so or to specifically order other humans to do so, that would not be unjust. On the other hand, for one or more humans to do it on their own without a special dispensation from God, then that's theft (unjust).

It further seems to me that if the OT law required one party to take from a second party to give to a third party, then it is a case of a special command to those Hebrews in that situation. For any other humans to engage in such taking, without special authorization/command from God, it is theft and necessarily immoral.

So I would conclude that today it is immoral for states to engage in the practice, in the same sense that it is immoral for me to steal your car.

I attempted to respond to something like this in post #144.

[lilpixieofterror]

LPoT never seriously and thoughtfully considers other people's arguments. You should drop it.

Irony at its finest. Just see my signature (and the link) for examples of PM's 'arguments'.

[Darth Executor]

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.

Christians give resistance to using the government to helping the poor, not "society" or "giving to the poor" in general. And it shouldn't be surprising at all, as it's not even really about the poor but a subconscious distrust of a cosmopolitan liberal government. People don't want to give their money to Satan.

[lilpixieofterror]

P1: Social welfare programs are alleged to generally succeed at creating people who are capable of caring for themselves.
P2: There exist examples of people benefiting from social welfare programs who are not capable of caring for themselves.
C1: Therefore, social welfare programs are not generally successful at creating people who are capable of caring for themselves.

Using the exact same logic to describe a setting you would be intimately familiar with (military), I showed how this logic is fatally flawed. And you agreed that the logic is fatally flawed. But you maintain that it nevertheless is valid for the argument you're making about social welfare programs.

Awww yes, the point in the game where Sam tells people what they think and their own arguments and attempts to refute his strawman recreations of their arguments instead of trying to understand a word they said. Sorry Sam, but this problem is not just among a few people, but is a huge widespread problem and you have been unable to produce any evidence, at all, to support your claims that these are the greatest thing ever and creates people who are capable of caring for themselves. I do have cousins that know just how to gauge the system. They work in a certain job, that sits right below the threshold for them to correct their benefits and they end up being able to collect them. Since they are not doing anything illegal (knowing how to use the system is not illegal) they are not committing fraud. However; how are they becoming better or more independent people, by living on the government dime? They are doing what it takes to get by and that is it. That is how people or even animals tend to work though. If you hand them their daily bread, many will do just what it ends up taking to get by and that is it. Welfare should be about helping people in actual need, which it often isn't about anymore.

You are not seriously and thoughtfully considering these arguments, leading to situations where you contradict your own thinking and argument in dramatic fashion. Further engagement is therefore pretty obviously not going to yield good fruit.

I didn't contradict anything Sam, you're just trying to shove words down my throat and are incapable of refuting a word said. So are you going to tell me what method you have used to determine what parts of the Bible I should take seriously and what parts I shouldn't yet or perhaps you just want to accuse me of being incapable of reading, for awhile longer, and just show more of your insulting behavior that you keep earning. Hey, if that is your goal, good job. Now I have again confirmed what CP said before... you're a waste of time bothering with.

[Adrift]

so I must not of read what Sam said well.

To add to what pancreasman said above, the "of" that you hear in words like "should of" "could of" "would of" and in this case "not of", is not really an "of". The word that you think is "of" is actually the contraction for the word "have".

In more formal settings we might say something like "should have", "could have", "would have" and "not have", but when we're being conversational we often just contract the "have".

So how things like "should of" or "could of" should be spelled is "should've", "could've", "would've", "not've".

Its a very common spelling mistake, and Lord knows I have my own issues spelling , but its one of those things that once you're aware of it, it starts bugging you and you see it everywhere.