Why is the "Christian Right" not an oxymoron?

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

I don't know how you get "God is behind it" from those two statements...

Click to expand...

Because they are in the Bible - God's word. Moses wrote the first from dictation from the Father; and Our Lord, (God the Son,) said the second. That means it is according to God's plan.

The point of being religious is to try to stop the fact that poverty exists and it has nothing to do with "mutual blessings" or any strange notions like that...

Click to expand...

Trying to stop poverty is like trying to stop the ocean tides. Good luck with that. Mutual Blessing is not a "strange notion" but a biblical principle. To develop it here would be way off topic. You can get the book:


Dr Juster also published a newsletter article on it last year:

http://www.tikkuninternational.org/newsletters/dj-feb14.php

dogs4thewin said:

Did the rich man though give Lazarus anything while both were alive?

Click to expand...

The text only says that Lazarus tended to hang around at the gates of the wealthy man. The point of the text is that the wealthy person had what he had in his life and Lazarus did not therefore Lazarus would be given comfort and the wealthy person will be punished.

dogs4thewin said:

That does not mean you allow people to abuse you. Remember, He also says one should be wise as a snake, but at the same time gentle as a dove.

Click to expand...

Does he say you should turn away people who ask for things from you? Does he say that you shouldn't feed the poor? The verses I posted say the exact opposite.

That you would accuse the homeless and the starving of abusing you is even more disgusting than your refusal to help them.

morningstar2651 said:

I'm not sure why I should be upset if you did get a free steak.

I'd be happy for you.

Click to expand...

The first steak I ever ate was at my high school football team's pregame meal. Somebody had to teach me how to cut the thing. It was delicious.

DaveW-Ohev said:

Because they are in the Bible - God's word. Moses wrote the first from dictation from the Father; and Our Lord, (God the Son,) said the second. That means it is according to God's plan.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's the sense that these statements are said, it's more of a reminder that they will be there rather than a prerogative that they should always exist.

DaveW-Ohev said:

Trying to stop poverty is like trying to stop the ocean tides. Good luck with that. Mutual Blessing is not a "strange notion" but a biblical principle. To develop it here would be way off topic. You can get the book:

Click to expand...

Yes a strange notion. I don't like non-academic texts so I'd probably not like that one. I tend only to read things that receive book reviews from JBL or JSNT or JSHJ another prominent peer-reviewed journal.

dogs4thewin said:

The poor is not our responsiabily they ONLY are if they are doing their part. If someone is not willing to help themselves we owe them NOTHING, but the gospel now if someone CANNOT help themselves that is different.

Click to expand...

If you don't think that the poor is your responsibility ask yourself if the text ever said that Lazarus ever asked for the scrapes from the floor of the wealthy person. The parable says only that he wished for them. Yet the wealthy person is punished for having them and Lazarus is offered comfort.

dogs4thewin said:

I do not remember. I DO know that I have recently TRIED to do charity as well as give money to church. When I say tried it related to my ability to actually GET there to do hands on charity. I cannot drive and in my area the only publiic transit is school buses which I have aged out of riding due to libability issues on BOTH sides. I would be willing to accept the liberity the school would not. I also used to put sandwiches together for the homeless when I was enrolled in college some semesters I did it due to my CHOSEN practuim so I guess in that sense one COULD argue that I did it by force, although I DID choose the practuim, however sometimes I did it by complete choice and wished there were more to make.

Click to expand...

If you can't remember, then let's fix that. Let's not put it off any longer. No more excuses - do something charitable today. Maybe you think it's acceptable to simply want or desire to give, but your good intentions don't help anyone if you never act on them.

• Feed my starving children
• Meals on wheels
• Charity Water
• Coalition for the homeless
• Homes for our Troops
• Help Syrian Refugees

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

or JSHJ another prominent peer-reviewed journal.

Click to expand...

I looked up those acronyms as I was not familiar with them. The last one kind of left me . It says on its opening page "The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus provides an international forum for the academic discussion of Jesus within the context of first-century Palestine."

There was no such place as "Palestine" in the first century. The Roman Province that eventually got that name was called "Judea," and it was not until AFTER the Bar Kochba revolution of 135 ad that Rome re-named it. Apparently they are NOT THAT INTERESTED in historical accuracy.

Besides, a book of that type does not seem to be a good fit for such a group as it is more doctrinal from the WHOLE BIBLE than just New Testament.

DaveW-Ohev said:

I looked up those acronyms as I was not familiar with them. The last one kind of left me . It says on its opening page "The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus provides an international forum for the academic discussion of Jesus within the context of first-century Palestine."

There was no such place as "Palestine" in the first century. The Roman Province that eventually got that name was called "Judea," and it was not until AFTER the Bar Kochba revolution of 135 ad that Rome re-named it. Apparently they are NOT THAT INTERESTED in historical accuracy.

Besides, a book of that type does not seem to be a good fit for such a group as it is more doctrinal from the WHOLE BIBLE than just New Testament.

Click to expand...

If a very general academic journal throws you then perhaps it's time to start thinking about how in touch or out of touch you are with what goes on in the theology, biblical studies and history departments in universities...

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

If a very general academic journal throws you then perhaps it's time to start thinking about how in touch or out of touch you are with what goes on in the theology, biblical studies and history departments in universities...

Click to expand...

I am certainly "out of touch" with what goes on in those academic departments.

My university experience is in Engineering. (math, physics, mechanics etc.)

RDKirk said:

That argument would only be unhypocritical if the Body of Christ were actually performing in an Acts 2/Acts 4/2 Corinthians 8 manner even within itself.

Click to expand...

Two wrongs don't make a right.

dogs4thewin said:

Feeding is poor and giving them to the best are different things. What is the point of food? Is it to taste good? no

Click to expand...

Do you think the poor should only be fed food that tastes bad, or should they not be fed at all?

miniverchivi said:

Well, you have to keep in mind, the US has long abandoned the concept of looking at things on an issue by issue basis in favor of this concept in which you have to select between bundle A and bundle B (to our own detriment in my opinion).

So bundle A has
Pro-life
Smaller social safety nets
Pro-gun
Conservative economic views
Strong military
anti-SSM
Stricter immigration policies
Business first/environment second

bundle B has
Pro-choice
Larger social safety nets
Gun control
Liberal economic views
Limited Military
pro-SSM
Relaxed immigration policies
Environment first/business second


When you're left with these two option packages, it's almost inevitable that you're going to have to vote against your own interests in one area or another in order to vote for your interests in another area.

...at that point, people end up having to decide which issues are the most important to them, and in the case of the religious right, it's likely that their desire to oppose abortion outweighs their desire to strengthen social safety nets for the poor...and right now, the republican "option package" is the one that contains the pro-life option.

For many of us who don't fit neatly one box A or box B, it leaves us a bit jaded about the political process we have. For example, if I got to choose on an option by option basis, I'd be picking 4 from bundle A, and 4 from bundle B...so if I voted for either major party, I'd be voting against my own interests on half of the major issues.

Click to expand...

Very well stated!

We clearly have become, more broad brushed in how we define and view issues.

That, is not a good thing.

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

Anyone who reads the stories of the early Christians in Acts will think that these people lived in full commonality and that if someone entered their fold and didn't give up all their possessions they were killed by the Holy Spirit. Evidently the early Christians didn't consider "private property" to be important.

Click to expand...

Then why did Peter say this (Acts 5:1-4)

But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. However, he kept back part of the proceeds with his wife’s knowledge, and brought a portion of it and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Then Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the proceeds from the field? Wasn’t it yours while you possessed it? And after it was sold, wasn’t it at your disposal? Why is it that you planned this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God!”

Clearly, there was no compulsion for the believers to give up everything--although they had to truly give what they claimed to be giving.

And then Paul also said this:

Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. -- 2 Corinthians 9:7

No, they didn't consider their possessions their own private property--as I said earlier, they considered themselves stewards of what belonged to Jesus.

But someone assigned as a steward is not free to hand his stewardship to someone else. It is still his responsibility to steward properly the stewardship given to him. If Jesus had intended it to be in someone else's hands, He would have put it into someone else's hands.

The Lord said: “Who then is the faithful and sensible manager his master will put in charge of his household servants to give them their allotted food at the proper time? That slave whose master finds him working when he comes will be rewarded. I tell you the truth: He will put him in charge of all his possessions. -- Luke 12:42-44

NolanJ said:

I don't think Conservatives are against social safety nets for people who are down on their luck and want to get back on their feet. But perpetually giving benefits to people who are able bodied creates a culture of welfare and dependence which has killed the inner city. Those areas have gotten worse after the welfare system expanded and Democrats use that culture of dependence to secure the black vote by saying conservatives will take your money away when long term that would be best option.

God does not like sloth and a number of times in the Epistles they say if you don't work you don't eat .

Click to expand...

Actually, it says that only once, in 2 Thessalonians 3:10. Interestingly, Lenin also liked to quote it during the Russian Revolution as an aphorism for communism.

But in context:

2 Thessalonians 3:6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.
2 Thessalonians 3:7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you,
2 Thessalonians 3:8 nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
2 Thessalonians 3:11 We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies.

What both the political right and political left love to forget is that none of this concerns the world at large or the actions of government. It all has to do with relations between believers in the Body of Christ, including working.

Paul did not give a fig about what Caesar was doing (and, btw, the Roman empire did have a free bread program for indigent Roman citizens). None of this has anything to do with what Caesar is doing, good or bad, or what taxes Caesar levies, for good or bad purposes. Jesus was not talking about that; Paul was not talking about that; Peter was not talking about that; James was not talking about that. This is all about the management of resources within the Body of Christ, and the point of that is for resources to flow through the Body so that every member of the Body has his needs met.

If my needs are met today--especially if I have good reason to believe I'll get paid again by the end of the week--then I should be checking whether everyone in my congregation is having his needs met. The congregation should have a mechanism to determine that.

If the needs of everyone in my congregation are being met, we should be looking at the next congregation; then the next state; then the next nation. Every Christian on earth should be having his needs met through the flow of resources within the Body of Christ.

It is not that there may be relief for others and hardship for you, but it is a question of equality— at the present time your surplus is available for their need, so their abundance may also become available for our need, so there may be equality. As it has been written:
The person who gathered much
did not have too much,
and the person who gathered little
did not have too little. -- 2 Corinthians 8

A person might have had a excellent 9-5 job--but that's not what Paul is talking about. Paul is talking about working in and for the Body of Christ. As one of my former pastors has said: "Everyone in this congregation has a resource, everyone in this congregation has a need." It might not be about money: The congregation may pay the rent of the member who is an unemployed carpenter...but that carpenter will be expected to fix the porch of the member who is a widow on a small, fixed budget.

Soyeong said:

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Click to expand...

I don't know what that response means with respect to my post.

morningstar2651 said:

Really? Which verses?

Click to expand...

2 Thessalonians 3:10, however the context is people refusing to work to help out the community at a time when churches were still pooling their resources together--a person refusing to help out was quite literally draining the limited resources from the community and it meant less food for everyone, especially those who probably couldn't work or contribute and were dependent upon the good will of the community. It has literally nothing to do with people struggling with unemployment in the 21st century. Some like to use this passage as a "gotcha!" in order to defend their immoral positions in order that they can indulge their selfishness and ignore the plight of the poor.

-CryptoLutheran