Social Justice?

[pancreasman]

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.

[Psychic Missile]

Gee whiz did this thread move fast.

[Sam]

It is perfectly relevant to the whole context because it reveals intentions and what the law is really about. I know you don't want to discuss anything beyond what you narrowly define and don't want to address points that might refute your precious beliefs about wealth redistribution, but is it possible the the laws intentions was not so much about redistribution as it was about something else? What could some of those 'something elses' be?



There is no evidence of the 'wire hanger' abortions were ever actually tried, but I would imagine that an all knowing God has more in mind than simply the major intentions of a law. Don't you agree? I would think that God, who knows human nature as well as he does, would know that humans would change up their behavior based upon what the law says. What sort of things would such a law have, upon a population?



Sorry Sam, but there's a world of difference between humans, who seem to assume that other humans will never change up their behavior based on their laws, and God (who knows darn well that they would). Besides, only a poor law maker makes a law without considering what the results of their laws are; including their effects. What sort of effect would the jubilee have upon Israel? It is a simple question, why do you want to avoid it and call it 'irrelevant'? Because you don't want to address the fact that people would take the jubilee in mind, when they make their deals and be well aware of what deals are in their best interest and what deals are not?


You mean you're going to keep demanding that I answer your question, with the answer you want to hear? Gosh Sam, when are you going to learn that I don't play your little games with you? Consequences of laws, are quite relevant when discussing why a law should be put in effect or why a law is or isn't a good idea. Ignoring it, will not make the answer go away. What sort of consequences would a jubilee law have, upon Israel?

What the consequences of the law are, whether Jubilee executed as written would be a good idea, and whether the law was intended to change behaviors so as to eliminate the need for implementation are, again, irrelevant to the question of what the law says.

Please identify where I even said any of them were wrong. Are you trying to stuff words down my throat again Sam? Well, this is pretty typical for you, huh? Now, what are the consequences of such a law? Do you think screaming, "DUH THEY ARE IRRELEVANT!" magically makes the question disappear into a puff of smoke? Do you think if you ask the same question, while refusing to acknowledge my answer, will make my answer disappear into a puff of smoke too? Even you should be able to figure this out... what sort of effects would a reset law have on a society? Would people take such a reset law into in mind, when they make their deals? Yes or no?



Already dealt with, now answer the question already and stop coming up with excuses for why the consequences of a law are 'irrelevant' when discussing the law in question. Where did you dig up that insanity from?

Good. So you have no objection to the syllogism and do not disagree that Jubilee not only allowed the state of Israel to redistribute wealth and facilitate equality but required the state of Israel to do so. So if social justice means:

In the modern sense? It is a justification to take things from one person, who earned it, and hand it to another person who didn't earn it.

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.

Glad we got that hashed out.

—Sam

[KingsGambit]

I also agree with Paprika's assessment of the gleaning laws. Most "casual" Bible readers are probably most familiar with the process through Boaz's participation. This speaks against the notion that mandating any form of charity is immoral (which I don't think anybody here has argued).

The year of Jubilee could have been economically manipulated, no doubt... but I think its existence at the very least does point toward God's intentions for societal behavior. I think it was dismissed too quickly here.

[DLAbaoaqu]

Social justice is construct arbitrarily created by whiny SJWs, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton so they can whine about not getting the toys they want. It's a fairy tale.

[KingsGambit]

Social justice is construct arbitrarily created by whiny SJWs, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton so they can whine about not getting the toys they want. It's a fairy tale.

May I recommend reading through the thread first?

[pancreasman]

Social justice is construct arbitrarily created by whiny SJWs, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton so they can whine about not getting the toys they want. It's a fairy tale.

I guess all those Bible quotes mean nothing.

[seer]

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

[Sam]

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

[seer]

The assertion was that "social justice" has been perverted from its legitimate, biblical meaning in modern times and come to mean something less legitimate, namely the transfer of wealth to "those who didn't earn it." This exclusion of redistributive economic justice has become quite common in social thought, especially concentrated at the moment among "conservatives."

Whether Jubilee was a good system or not (and whether one could legitimately compare a law/idea Christ claimed to be fulfilling at the start of His ministry with Mosaic execution laws), is separate from the question of whether "social justice" historically (and biblically!) includes redistributive economic justice.

Since the redistribution of wealth by the state is not only a biblical principle but one that prefigured an even greater act of redistribution to "those who didn't earn it," it puts a bit of shame to the argument that redistribution of wealth by government is necessarily immoral.

—Sam

First Sam, I'm not sure who said wealth redistribution was necessarily immoral. Second, if you think it is a good idea (moral and just) then I assume that you also believe that the execution of particular sinners is also a good idea (moral and just). Why not?

[Sam]

First Sam, I'm not sure who said wealth redistribution was necessarily immoral. Second, if you think it is a good idea (moral and just) then I assume that you also believe that the execution of particular sinners is also a good idea (moral and just). Why not?

have

[seer]

Well, I'm not a proponent of inerrancy or infallibility in Scripture so the question is premised on a faulty assumption. Those who -are- believers in inerrancy and infallibility might have some difficulty with that question — but it would cut both ways.

And the point isn't about "wealth distribution" — charity distributes wealth and nobody complains about that (unless you're Ayn Rand). But you yourself have complained that state-implemented wealth redistribution is immoral, that the state has no right to "force" you to give up your earned wealth so it can be handed over to someone who didn't earn it.

For better or worse, though, that is the essence of Jubilee, as it existed in ancient Israelite law. The onus is on you, then, to explain why such a practice is necessarily immoral (or even immoral in the form of, say, a 5% take hike on the very rich to pay for social programs).

—Sam

Really Sam, if you agree that the Jubilee for instance, is a moral and just principle, why not also the execution of particular sinners? And remember we are speaking of Hebrews giving to Hebrews - all under the Mosaic Covenant. Even the stranger in the land had to adhere to said Covenant. Ostensibly they were all believers. It would be more like Christians helping Christians. Not giving monies to secular, godless causes or peoples.

[Sam]

Really Sam, if you agree that the Jubilee for instance, is a moral and just principle, why not also the execution of particular sinners? And remember we are speaking of Hebrews giving to Hebrews - all under the Mosaic Covenant. Even the stranger in the land had to adhere to said Covenant. Ostensibly they were all believers. It would be more like Christians helping Christians. Not giving monies to secular, godless causes or peoples.

[Mountain Man]

What is social justice? I often hear the phrase but can find no definitive definition. It seems to be a catch all term that can encompass just about anything.

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.

[seer]

You are splitting hairs; the question at the root of most of these arguments against redistribution of wealth (yours included) is that it is immoral to "force" one person, who has earned their wealth, to relinquish it for another's benefit, especially if that other "didn't earn it." You have not, to my knowledge, ever argued that such "force" is legitimate only when your money would be going to another Christian. And you've never limited your complaint to only "godless causes" (one wonders whether SNAP, which feeds the poor, is godless or TANF, which goes to needing families is godless).

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.

I can look at execution laws in the OT and realize that they are not necessary for social welfare, or even advisable under Christian doctrine. You'd have a hard time doing that with Jubilee, though, since Jesus -sort of- made it the pillar of His ministry when He began and explicitly carried the themes of Jubilee throughout his teaching. It's really not hard to determine that some OT rules/laws/habits are regional/cultural/anachronistic and others are timeless and fundamental to the faith. Jubilee is an expression of salvation and no less. Trying to argue that it's on the same level as Levitical stoning laws is showing a deep carelessness with the text. It reminds me of when I hear people ranting about how the Bible is the inerrant, infallible, perfect Word of God (always a peeve of mine) and then I see them put a soda can on the blessed thing. Gotta treat the text with respect, inside and out.

—Sam

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.