Religious Left?

[RDKirk]

Since you're just quoting Scripture I can only make assumptions about what you mean. So this verse says that those who don't submit to the Lord Jesus deserve death - this would imply that they are obliged to submit to him, yet fail to meet their obligation. So you're saying that everyone is called to submit to Jesus then?

No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather tries to please his commanding officer. -- 2 Timothy 2

For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. -- 1 Corinthians 5

Our concern is to make sure all who have been enabled have a chance to hear and respond to the gospel. How God judges the rest of the world is "above our pay grade."

It is not our mission to fix the world, but to provide an asylum out of it.

 

[Tree of Life]

No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather tries to please his commanding officer. -- 2 Timothy 2

For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. -- 1 Corinthians 5

Our concern is to make sure all who have been enabled have a chance to hear and respond to the gospel. How God judges the rest of the world is "above our pay grade."

It is not our mission to fix the world, but to provide an asylum out of it.

I'm not suggesting that it's our mission to fix the world. You seem to be shadow boxing because you're not really opposing my views. I'm just saying, as you say above, that all people are called to submit to Jesus Christ.

 

[Tull]

But what I can't get my head around is the rhetoric of the government "stealing" from us, or the outright resentment of taxes.

In some cases government is stealing from us

But I'd rather live in a country where we try to ensure that no one starves or sleeps rough out of poverty than one with no welfare, even if the welfare system is not perfect.

Its not an all or nothing proposition or a matter of perfection but a matter of understanding that a society cannot survive more are taking than contributing....we don't have enough poverty in America so we are importing it and exporting jobs....not hard to figure out what that will lead to.

 

[Sketcher]

I do not understand why the Christian Right expects government institutionalization of some Christian values but not others. For example, many go to great lengths advocating for the government to illegalize abortion but when it comes to helping the poor which Jesus did talk about many of those same persons say, "Oh that only applies to us Christians and it wasn't meant for the government." I find that a curiosity that I cannot reconcile. If we want our Christian values codified into law, why don't we go for it all?

Well, when innocent human life is being targeted for death, I'm in favor of making that illegal. I believe that is far more sound morally than insisting on a failed economic system and trying to make that shoe fit Jesus' teachings when it clearly does not.

I'd rather have a government that feeds the poor and disabled than one who spends most of its resources on the defense industry and exporting war. But then I proudly stand on the Christian Left.

No matter how far left you go, resources tend to go to defense and war tends to be exported. Case in point, the Soviets.

 

[Sketcher]

I see it the exact opposite way: the flip side of lobbying is that it incentivizes (de)regulation that favors corporations. This has been the case to the book since the late 70s, with big business successfully lobbying congress and so changing (usually limiting) regulation to fit their preferences. Regulating corporations isn't what intrinsically incentivizes lobbying; corporations big enough and with enough money that want to better themselves is what incentivizes lobbying. Moreover, there's always going to be regulation, even in a lasseiz-faire society, seeing how there are legal protections for wealth and income in such societies. Regulation is intrinsic to government itself; it's just a matter of which regulations a given society prefers.

They want to better themselves, but when they see the government has an interest in regulating the economy, or can be swayed to regulating the economy, they'll use their influence to protect their own interests. It may be selective de-regulation for them, or regulation that they know they can absorb but that their smaller competitors cannot. So it cuts both ways.

You're saying that education and ignorance predict economic success or lack thereof. I strongly disagree. Upward mobility and income inequality predict economic success; nobody is foolish enough to be brainwashed to the point that he can't see that a job that pays $15 an hour is much better without welfare that pays $7 an hour. Anyone who is self-limiting in such a way is almost always suffering from a psychological limitation, like substance abuse or negative self-efficacy. That stuff isn't taught; it's the consequence of being poor. Education is a (long) way out of this, but so are measures that actually enable the poor to be less poor.

You only climb up a ladder if you think you can. And you can only navigate the financial and life choices that bring success if you know how to do so successfully. If you are fed information to believe that you cannot succeed because of where you were born or what you were born to look like or that you can only make it with the government's hand up, and that the government will be there for you, that will shape the way you think and confine you accordingly. Not to say there aren't issues with racism in this country or that there aren't some circumstances that limit people's choices, but education is a key difference maker here. Unfortunately, far too many schools are failing our kids.

 

[Uncle Tommy]

The religious right is a dominant force in politics, but are they correct? Jesus argued some very left wing positions, some could even be considered communist.

"And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need." (Acts 2:44-45)
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" (Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program)

Any thoughts?

Well my first thought is that there is no evidence that the Scripture you provided is an idea that originated with Jesus. I consider myself Christo-centric, that is I try to vote in a manner that I believe would be pleasing to Jesus. With that in mind I find myself usually voting liberal, centrist (on the authoritarian/libertarian spectrum) and moral. I do not believe that I am always right. I am sure that if Jesus voted sometimes my vote and His vote would disagree due to my own ignorance. I hope this helped.

 

[Albion]

With that in mind I find myself usually voting liberal, centrist (on the authoritarian/libertarian spectrum) and moral. .

That covers the entire political spectrum from Left to Right, if you noticed.

 

[Uncle Tommy]

That covers the entire political spectrum from Left to Right, if you noticed.

It doesn't bother me, I don't like the labels but so long as I vote in a manner that I believe Christ would where on the political spectrum that falls means little to me.

 

[greenguzzi]

True. But I'm interested in hijacking political endeavours for the Lord.

That is not the mission He gave us, however.

Following His instructions, rather that "doing what is right in our own eyes" is vital.

I think Saint Paul would disagree with you. In Acts 17:16-34 he uses the ideas of those around him to preach Christ. He hijacked the philosophical and religious ideas of others for the Lord. which is not all that different to what I wish to do.
In fact what Paul does here is somewhat more outrageous compared to what I'm talking about. So I say that this is well within the limits of the mission He gave us.

 

[Paidiske]

I see transforming injustice, and working for peace and reconciliation, as part of God's mission, in which we ought to participate.

The political process is one avenue by which we can do that.

 

[RDKirk]

I think Saint Paul would disagree with you. In Acts 17:16-34 he uses the ideas of those around him to preach Christ. He hijacked the philosophical and religious ideas of others for the Lord. which is not all that different to what I wish to do.
In fact what Paul does here is somewhat more outrageous compared to what I'm talking about. So I say that this is well within the limits of the mission He gave us.

Nothing Paul preaches is either Epicurean (Hedonistic) or Stoic. In fact, he ridicules their philosophies in other places, such as Philippians 3:19.

Paul does quote a decidedly non-Epicurean and non-Stoic philosophy of primitive Greek monotheism in which a few Greeks had observed such a constancy and regularity of nature that they concluded it must all be the work of a single, perfectly virtuous God. Now that idea Paul did accept.

Interestingly, though, those Greeks adopted that philosophy about the same time they first came into contact with Jews. I'm not saying the two were necessarily connected, but....such a coincidence.

At no point, however, did Paul ever preach that Christians should take over government and use the king's sword to force pagans to act like Christians.

 

[greenguzzi]

At no point, however, did Paul ever preach that Christians should take over government and use the king's sword to force pagans to act like Christians.

I'm not suggesting that at all. In fact, I would vehemently oppose such an idea. That's one reason why I don't oppose SSM legislation or a total ban on abortion.

I'm saying that in a representative democracy I have the right to attempt to influence the behaviour of my government. So that it behaves in a just and right manner in line with my ideals, which are informed by my faith in Christ. I'm not trying to force my fellow citizens to behave in a particular way, I'm asking those who should represent me to actually represent me. If more Christians did this it would result in less injustice in the world.

 

[Strivax]

The religious right is a dominant force in politics, but are they correct? Jesus argued some very left wing positions, some could even be considered communist.

"And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need." (Acts 2:44-45)
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" (Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program)

Any thoughts?

OK, so I haven't read the thread through, this is just an immediate reaction. I look forward to catching up soon.

But, if the people decide they are going to share their wealth amongst each other, so that none should lack having their basic needs met, that is one thing, and I think it would be a good thing. If the state decides that for them, that is quite another, and I think it would be a bad thing. The state should not usurp the individual's right to express their own virtue, for that is to defeat the object of the exercise, which is that we each should grow in moral stature, by developing our virtue by practicing our virtue, and so become fit for heaven.

To be sure, if we all loved God, and loved each other, as Jesus commands of us, none would lack for anything. But we don't. And the state can't fill that gap of love by dictat. All we can legitimately do is seek to persuade by force of moral argument in democratic dialog, and gradually build by consensus the utopia both Jesus, and Karl Marx, wanted for us.

Cheers, Strivax.

 

[greenguzzi]

The state should not usurp the individual's right to express their own virtue

It's not about virtue, it's about justice. The fact is that wealth currently is distributed in such an unfair manner that some don't have enough to live a modest or adequate life.

We should support any entity that can stem the current unjust redistribution of wealth.

To assess the situation in terms of the virtue of giving is totally missing the point.
It is very self-centred to judge the worth of charity for what the giver might get out of it (virtue), rather then the needs of the receiver (justice).

You have turned Matt 25:40 on its head.

 

[greenguzzi]

gradually build by consensus the utopia both Jesus, and Karl Marx, wanted for us.

Are you a postmillenialist? Not many of you left!

 

[ScottA]

The religious right is a dominant force in politics, but are they correct? Jesus argued some very left wing positions, some could even be considered communist.

"And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need." (Acts 2:44-45)
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" (Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program)

Any thoughts?

If war is the problem, then peace is the answer...and if war is the solution, then peace is the wrong answer.

Life (created by God) is a battlefield, a war between good and evil. Of course Jesus preached peace...but let's not forget - He also started a war.

So, to answer the question...we should not lift our hand against a brother - but to the enemy, we should rain down hell. And the left have that backwards.

 

[greenguzzi]

And the left have that backwards.

So, according to you, the left have the concept of war "backwards". How so?

I'm pretty sure that most lefties don't condone "lifting a hand against a brother", although a Christian - regardless of political persuasion - might be inclined to do so; seeing as Jesus pretty much encouraged it (Luke 14:26)
;-)

It's possibly true that lefties might be more tolerant than others towards their enemies. But that is easy for Christian lefties, because Jesus tells us that if we want to be children of our Father in heaven, we must love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. (Matthew 5:44-45)

So I'm pretty sure that it's the left who have this particular concept correct, and it's you who have it backwards.

 

[Strivax]

It's not about virtue, it's about justice. The fact is that wealth currently is distributed in such an unfair manner that some don't have enough to live a modest or adequate life.

We should support any entity that can stem the current unjust redistribution of wealth.

To assess the situation in terms of the virtue of giving is totally missing the point.
It is very self-centred to judge the worth of charity for what the giver might get out of it (virtue), rather then the needs of the receiver (justice).

You have turned Matt 25:40 on its head.

I agree with much of what you say. Life is unjust. That should be rectified. But it takes virtue to recognise the injustice, and even more virtue to rectify it. And where is this virtue to come from, if the state makes all moral decisions on behalf of the citizen, and treats them like infants?

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Paidiske]

The problem I have with the way you've put that, Strivax, is that it constructs virtue as a completely individualistic affair.

Maybe the virtue of justice is one which we need to cultivate corporately, in order to adequately respond to problems which are bigger than any individual. And wouldn't the political process be part of such a corporate effort?

 

[Strivax]

The problem I have with the way you've put that, Strivax, is that it constructs virtue as a completely individualistic affair.

Maybe the virtue of justice is one which we need to cultivate corporately, in order to adequately respond to problems which are bigger than any individual. And wouldn't the political process be part of such a corporate effort?

Can't argue with any of that

But corporate virtue depends on the projection of the aggregate sum of the component individual's virtue! In other words, corporate bodies are moral or immoral according to the level of virtue of the individuals that comprise them. If we seek short-cuts, by the flexing of power and dictating of people's moralities; if we leave any behind in this ethical enterprise, namely, to save the world; then we leave a weak link in the chain that will eventually come back and be shaken by the zombies that will haunt us.

Best wishes, Strivax.