Modern philosophies.....or just different than what one believes?

[mkgal1]

Another thought: Loads of people consider the topic of "social concerns" to be a "new" and "modern" view (liberalism).....but others (all throughout history) have seen that as the *main* message of the Bible. I guess it's what we mentioned earlier--one's lens they are reading through.

I found this:

http://www.discipleshipdefined.com/resources/social-concern-–-caring-poor-and-marginalized

 

[LinkH]

mkgal1,
Social concerns are very important. A problem arises when people who profess to be Christians support 'social concerns' that are contrary to what God has revealed, supporting sexual wickedness or certain forms of social engineering for example.

I mentioned left-wing social justice warriors. Of course, what I had in mind were the pro-social-engineering type, not people standing in soup kitchens feeding the poor or out raising money for the poor.

I heard a radio interview about 8 years ago on the radio with a professor from Virginia who'd done research on the giving of liberals versus the giving of conservatives. He found that conservatives donated much, much more to social causes, not only the ones you might expect. They even gave more to the environment. Church-going social conservatives gave even more (--I believe the metric took into account their income.) This was consistent with conservative political philosophy in some ways. Liberals want the government to tax more and distribute the money to social causes, and conservatives think these things should be handled through private donations.

I can think of passages that contain prophecies against the people for not sharing with others. That seems to me to be about individual giving, mainly. I don't see a modern US 'liberal' philosophy there. There was one tax-like law regarding giving to the poor, the tithe of the third year. Land ownership laws allowed for the poor or anyone to glean from a harvest if they did not bring in a container. This food did not have to go through a government tax-collection process.

There are also passages about social justice in the Old Testament, but this has to do with enforcing the laws given through Moses in a just and fair way. Some of the modern 'liberal' so-called 'social justice' activity is very much contrary to what we see in the law of Moses, like activists for several years trying to redefine marriage contrary to what we see in the Bible so that those who perform sex acts that were death penalty crimes in the Law God gave to Israel could be considered 'married.'

Some left-wing social justice warrior issues are just really strange, like promoting the 'rights' of men to use the women's rest room.

 

[HannahT]

Some left-wing social justice warrior issues are just really strange,

I think many of them started with good intentions, but went off the trail into whack a doodle country!

I will never use the term feminism - for example - with anything to describe me. The concept was hijacked, and all these layers of nonsense is used instead. What used to be about equality for all humans - respect and dignity for all...is now GENDER feminism. It's gynocentric now, and that leads to hatred of anything not in the dominate feminine viewpoint. What nonsense and trash! I resent it, and will have NOTHING to do with it! You lose balance of thought, and respect and dignity for others.

I have participated in many social programs, and I'm speaking of hands on with money as well. My heart breaks for the homeless for example. Yet, many SJW that claim they speak for them? They haven't got a clue what they are talking about most of the time. There are so many dynamics their train of thought can't even begin to comprehend! When you try to explain things? You get shouted down and demeaned. They seem to feel they know MORE about the subject, because they read about it - compared to reading and working in this area. Sadly, their arrogance is doing more harm than good!

I think this world depends to much on black and white thinking, and the divide is getting wider due to it.

 

[mkgal1]

The one issue is off the table for discussion (the sexual issues...but men aren't wishing to use the women's rest rooms, BTW).....but there are other injustices and other social concerns besides poverty. Those concerns seem to be left to "the liberals" (or "left-wing social justice warriors" as you used) instead of the [mainstream] church.

I'm not referring to merely giving money to the poor or helping out after natural disasters.....I'm referring to helping groups that are marginalized and "held back" (or backs turned on them) because of bias. By "helping"....I mean efforts that equalize the "playing field" (so to speak).....like changing laws or, instead of criminalizing things like drug addiction, providing programs for actual rehabilitation (like what Portugal did). I'm grateful to see that it's changing a bit as more churches are joining in to help with putting an end to human trafficking. But.....I wonder if the BLM movement would have been considerably different if more people didn't interpret that to be a movement against law enforcement?

Consideration and fairness of one group shouldn't be at the expense of another (that's not equality).

 

[mkgal1]

I think this world depends too much on black and white thinking, and the divide is getting wider due to it.

This .....exactly!

I've heard it described that many groups define themselves based on another group they hate (or don't wish to resemble).....that's either/or thinking, and we should strive, I believe, to have a more united attitude of "and/both".....because, to me, that's what Jesus modeled for us (as did the early church in the beginning of Acts).

An interesting article (IMO) about "black/white" thinking (or a "dualistic mind"):http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-tsilimparis/stress-and-dualistic-mind_b_978230.html

Throughout our lives, we often inspire undue stress and anxiety by viewing our existence with a “dualistic mind.” We create a world of private duality, a world that is limited to fixed or black and white thinking. We do this because it gives us a (false) sense of security and control over life’s uncertainties. The dualistic mind tricks us into thinking we have this “life” thing figured out, and we don’t have to struggle and search anymore. And that feels good — but only temporarily.

The truth is this all-or-nothing mentality actually narrows our vision and creates insecurity. For example, the dualistic mind impels us to judge ourselves as:

right or wrong
good or bad
strong or weak
smart or stupid
success or failure

This type of thinking colors all of our experiences and pressures us to live in the irrational realm of extremes. But the color that infrequently exists in the dualistic mind is the “gray.” The unflinching dualistic mind has no balance in its thought process. It is all one-sided and usually very inflexible.

The fact is life does not work that way. Life is actually full of subtle balance and varying degrees in every area of being human. In fact, there are really very few situations that are not.

 

[mkgal1]

It seems to me that Truth is truth and all truth comes from God---and that genuine Truth inspires positive change and new life (and we can see the fruit in an obvious way).

This is an example (although it's an example in the Jewish community) of what I mean about someone being an agent of "social justice" and remaining true to their spiritual framework (and how it "stirs up others to love" and breathes new life):

“The idea was to create an opportunity for Jews to engage in traditional Jewish ritual and practice, while also learning and doing social justice work together in a community. I wanted to speak to their hearts and minds, to call for an integration of the spiritual, social, political and emotional self,” Brous said. And while IKAR didn’t target a specific population, “We wanted to realize this Jewish vision in a voice and with a vibe that would resonate with people who might find themselves outside the fold of conventional Jewish life.”

Today, IKAR’s success has brought it to a crossroads, nudging it closer to the world of institutional structure it initially associated with stagnation and emptiness.

“I have heard from so many people — especially young and unaffiliated — that they gave up on Jewish life altogether because they found it spiritually empty, intellectually dishonest, morally inconsistent and socially unstimulating,” Brous said. “IKAR is part of a national trend toward revitalization of Jewish engagement and Jewish life.~http://www.jewishjournal.com/commun...aron_brous_inspires_change_and_controversy_20

 

[LinkH]

The one issue is off the table for discussion (the sexual issues...but men aren't wishing to use the women's rest rooms, BTW).....but there are other injustices and other social concerns besides poverty. Those concerns seem to be left to "the liberals" (or "left-wing social justice warriors" as you used) instead of the [mainstream] church.

I'm not referring to merely giving money to the poor or helping out after natural disasters.....I'm referring to helping groups that are marginalized and "held back" (or backs turned on them) because of bias. By "helping"....I mean efforts that equalize the "playing field" (so to speak).....like changing laws or, instead of criminalizing things like drug addiction, providing programs for actual rehabilitation (like what Portugal did). I'm grateful to see that it's changing a bit as more churches are joining in to help with putting an end to human trafficking. But.....I wonder if the BLM movement would have been considerably different if more people didn't interpret that to be a movement against law enforcement?

When I wrote 'social justice warriors' with left-wing causes, I was thinking of the weirder and divisive stuff, like extremes of feminism, sexual perversion, supporting the killing of babies, and weird ideas about gender and bathrooms. Some of the issues you mention are legitimate issues. Human trafficking is a serious issue and I don't see that as a 'left wing' cause. When blacks ar unfairly targeted by law enforcement, I think that people on both ends of the political spectrum can appreciate that issue. The Black Lives Matters did seem to be a movement against law enforcement. If the civil rights leaders involved with it were more discerning about which cases to target, it might make more sense, for example, not using some really large fellow who'd committed robbery who may have been attacking the police office who shot him, as a focus for protests may have been a wise decision.

I can also agree with you that some of the legislation regarding drug users is harsh and unhelpful. I know a former Republican for governor in one state who had been a judge and Lt. Governor who'd helped institute drug courts and a focus on rehabilitation and programs to keep drug users from cycling through the legal system. Many stay on probation and keep going to jail for years for breaking laws while on probation. Even the very conservative Pat Robertson commented a few years back that he thought the sentences for marijuana use were rather stiff in some cases, and very expensive. The 'war on drugs' may appeal more to conservatives, but some of these concerns you have cut across the board these days, IMO. Locking drug users and addicts up just doesn't solve the problem.

I question whether holding a sign and protesting is helpful for a lot of these social issues. I know of one church that was made up mostly of white middle class people--who seemed very socially conservative on moral issues-- who were working toward opening a Christian school in the inner city which was mainly aimed serving poor black children. IMO, this makes more sense than lobbying the government for more money for education in the inner cities.

 

[mkgal1]

If the civil rights leaders involved with it were more discerning about which cases to target, it might make more sense, for example, not using some really large fellow who'd committed robbery who may have been attacking the police office who shot him, as a focus for protests may have been a wise decision.

This is the attitude right here that riles me up. First of all (not that it matters.....because even if he had committed robbery....that doesn't warrant being strangled to death--especially when he was pleading for air and on the ground)....but I don't even know if that's true or if it was a way to try to justify things somewhat. That's why the movement was called "Black Lives Matter"....because it was too easy for people to take on the attitude of "well....he was just a 'thug'...so it's okay". To sum a person up as merely what they've done (a "thief" a "murderer"...etc)--as a way to discredit them--- is inhumane and lacks compassion. This is just what I mean about people claiming "liberalism" is new and/or "modern". Compassion and equality are NOT "new" or "modern"......it just seems that the modern conservative church seems to be re-writing history (or leaning towards the patriarchal culture of history). Breaking down bias may always seem "new", because it promotes change, but I see breaking down biases as a big part of God reconciling us to Him.

Thank goodness Jesus showed us a different way---having Paul (a "murderer" or "terrorist" by a lot of conservative standards) write most of the NT for us.....and He chose Matthew (the "extortionist" by the standards of those that like the label people and sum them up) as a disciple.

Don't get me wrong---I'm not saying to ignore what people have done all together (there needs to be remorse for their past---and a change of attitude).....but holding it over their head forever or using that as an excuse to mistreat them (even kill them) is wrong (the way I see it).

 

[HannahT]

This is the attitude right here that riles me up. First of all (not that it matters.....because even if he had committed robbery....that doesn't warrant being strangled to death--especially when he was pleading for air and on the ground)....but I don't even know if that's true or if it was a way to try to justify things somewhat.

I think he is referring to Ferguson.

 

[mkgal1]

not using some really large fellow who'd committed robbery who may have been attacking the police office who shot him

I think he is referring to Ferguson.

I had to go back to re-read how he'd described the person he was referring to. Now I don't know *who* he's referring to (Trayvon Martin wasn't a "large man" and Eric Garner wasn't shot). So.....I don't know who he's referring to.

 

[HannahT]

If the civil rights leaders involved with it were more discerning about which cases to target, it might make more sense, for example, not using some really large fellow who'd committed robbery who may have been attacking the police office who shot him, as a focus for protests may have been a wise decision.

The reason I say that is the young man (Michael Brown) was caught on camera prior to his altercation with the police robbing a nearby store.

Allegedly, after that he was stopped by a police officer and struggle happened within the police car while he was going for his gun. It went off a couple of times, and the officer - and I assume the young man as well - were punched during the fight. Then the young man took off, and police officer called for him to stop...and then started to shoot. He was then killed.

That's just going off memory of the case.

 

[mkgal1]

You're right....I forgot that the death of Michael Brown was in Ferguson (and he can be described as "a really large fellow", I guess). I'm getting my people mixed up.

There are details we will probably never know.....but what I'm referring to mostly isn't the details of situations like that but the attitude of "he was just a ________" as a way to excuse their deaths (as if it doesn't matter). We may not be able to makeover all police forces in our country.....but we can each make over our own hearts to try to see all people as having dignity and worth (as difficult as it may be).

 

[HannahT]

I didn't take what he said that he meant he didn't matter. I took what he said as they didn't stop to get details of the whole circumstance before the burned the town down, looted, and rioted. The young man - if the details are correct - tried to take down the cop first.

Protesting because you feel targeted due to your race, and punished more due to your race - is a very JUST thing to protest over! It's evil! This wasn't a case of that type of circumstance if we go by the findings that came forward.

Now, if you want to look at that case in Chicago where the police officer GUNNED down that unarmed teen - what was it - 15 times? I have no idea what was going through that guy's mind while shooting - in regards to race - but the man is a murderer. They need to throw him in jail, and throw away the key. It was totally unjustified, and the city - IMO - tried to cover it up. Due to the power there? I highly doubt anyone will be held truly accountable for that. The corruption needs to stop, and that is also worth protesting about.

Personally, I see all police killings as suspect until they prove to me they aren't. I've seen dirty cops in my life, and I know they are out there. If the facts of the case with Brown are correct? They ruined the life of the police officer due to race, and that's not cool either.

 

[mkgal1]

I didn't take what he said that he meant he didn't matter.

I don't mean Link specifically has that attitude.....just that it's prevalent enough to call for a movement to change it.

When I'd said that riles me up, I was referring to victims being defined as one thing they'd done (dehumanizing them).

Since the whole BLM discussion is really a side-issue....I'd rather not go down that trail. My main point in bringing it up is that there are still groups of people that are marginalized and excluded (other than ones that are related to sexual issues).

It's difficult to get out of the us versus them mentality. One of the most moving things I've witnessed is when one group (that has more agency) comes along as an advocate for the excluded or targeted group....like when the Jewish and Christian communities were protecting mosques a while back (and vice versa).