 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Aesthetics and Politics | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/18/2010 10:13 AM (GMT -6) |   | Daniel:
And that usually turned into a "modification" to continue to lend with interest, and use exploitative business techniques. They KNEW it was coming, and worked as hard as possible to minimize it's effects!
EXACTAMUNDO. The UNPURIFIED, UNCIRCUMSCISED, STONY human heart will take any end-arounds in a system to preserve the status quo of power acquisition, for the sake of exploitation. It can't do anything else.
For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Whole thread
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/18/2010 10:16:12 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/18/2010 10:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey One Love,
One Love: It would have become in Jesus' teaching a permanently defining trait of the new order.
Daniel: I wish I could see a community like that. It would blow my mind. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/18/2010 10:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Daniel:
Daniel: I wish I could see a community like that. It would blow my mind.
I'm not a natural optimist, by any stretch of the imagination. At the same time, I believe such a community is possible. Said community would just have to seriously REFRAME a lot of ways they see the world and interact with it. First thing to go is...guess what...any concept of ABSOLUTE SELF-OWNERSHIP. If "all men are created equal" (implying a Creator)...AND it can be said that the Creator owns everything that has been created, then we CANNOT own ourselves. Period.
Think about if the Church REALLY took that seriously. You do NOT have your body, property, or whatever do just do what YOU want with it...because it really AIN'T yours.
Isn't part of the whole abortion thing is some women saying that they have a RIGHT to do what they want with their OWN BODIES? Hmmm...
The only way a human being can be "strong enough" to give away everything they have is to be FREED from the illusion of absolute (self)ownership. Wanna example?
And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.” Peter began to say to him, “See, we have left everything and followed you.” Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/18/2010 10:24:58 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/18/2010 10:22 AM (GMT -6) | | I do, but I gotta head to work. I'll catch up later  | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/18/2010 10:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Self-Renunciation
by John Angell James (1785-1859)
Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
Some of the writing...
The apostle Paul teaches this important duty, by the following awakening and impressive appeal: "Don't you know that your body is a sanctuary of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God? You are notyour own, for you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body." (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). What is intended in these words is, that through the vicarious sufferings and death of Christ, as an atonement to Divinejustice for human transgressions—all who believe in him are freed from the curse of the law, and the dominion of sin, and are both justified and sanctified. The Christian is thus a bought man, a captive redeemed by price. Itis in this sense the whole church is called the "purchased possession," Eph. 1:14. Yes, and what an idea! I repeatit—a believer is a purchased man! And at what price has he been bought! All the jewels which adorn and enrichthe crown and scepter of the British monarch; with all the others that compose the regalia of all the sovereignsof the Eastern or Western world, are of no more worth in the redemption of the poorest widow in the church ofGod, than the dust of the street. Nothing but the blood of the Son of God could purchase a single soul.
How obvious is the inference! "You are not your own, for you were bought at a price!" How is it possible you should be your own—if you have been bought? In what sense a Christian is not his own, is explained to you by another portion of Scripture—"None of us lives to himself," Rom. 14:7. Do enter very seriously, and solemnly,and deeply, into these two impressive passages—
"You are not your own."
"None of us lives to himself."
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/18/2010 10:42 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/18/2010 10:47 AM (GMT -6) | | How about this? There are 371 known billionaires in the United States. Let's say that %1 of those were Christian (4 people). If those 4 out of 371 people decided to live according to the Jubilee Principle, that would at LEAST be 3 billion dollars...right there.
Now, what if 20% of the billionaires where Christian. That would be at least 20 billion dollars...IF we just assumed that all the billionaires only had 1 billion to share (but we KNOW many of them have more!)
Now, just imagine if the amount of American Christian billionaires was REPRESENTIVE of the general amount of Christians in the U.S. (Say around 75% or so)
Get the picture?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/18/2010 10:58 AM (GMT -6) | | God wants human authority to rule over others like Jesus, treating people like God's images.
Multinational corporations and the like want to rule over others like "The Tudors", treating people as means to preservation and expansion.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/18/2010 11:03 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/18/2010 12:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Hmmm...I feel a message coming on...
Wealth, Income, and Power
by G. William Domhoff
September 2005 (updated April 2010)
Make sure to check out Figure 1 and Figure 3!
Historical context
Numerous studies show that the wealth distribution has been extremely concentrated throughout American history, with the top 1% already owning 40-50% in large port cities like Boston, New York, and Charleston in the 19th century (Keister, 2005). It was very stable over the course of the 20th century, although there were small declines in the aftermath of the New Deal and World II, when most people were working and could save a little money. There were progressive income tax rates, too, which took some money from the rich to help with government services.
Then there was a further decline, or flattening, in the 1970s, but this time in good part due to a fall in stock prices, meaning that the rich lost some of the value in their stocks. By the late 1980s, however, the wealth distribution was almost as concentrated as it had been in 1929, when the top 1% had 44.2% of all wealth. It has continued to edge up since that time, with a slight decline from 1998 to 2001, before the economy crashed in the late 2000s and little people got pushed down again.
...
|
Table 3: Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2007. |
| |
Bottom 99 percent |
Top 1 percent |
| 1922 |
63.3% |
36.7% |
| 1929 |
55.8% |
44.2% |
| 1933 |
66.7% |
33.3% |
| 1939 |
63.6% |
36.4% |
| 1945 |
70.2% |
29.8% |
| 1949 |
72.9% |
27.1% |
| 1953 |
68.8% |
31.2% |
| 1962 |
68.2% |
31.8% |
| 1965 |
65.6% |
34.4% |
| 1969 |
68.9% |
31.1% |
| 1972 |
70.9% |
29.1% |
| 1976 |
80.1% |
19.9% |
| 1979 |
79.5% |
20.5% |
| 1981 |
75.2% |
24.8% |
| 1983 |
69.1% |
30.9% |
| 1986 |
68.1% |
31.9% |
| 1989 |
64.3% |
35.7% |
| 1992 |
62.8% |
37.2% |
| 1995 |
61.5% |
38.5% |
| 1998 |
61.9% |
38.1% |
| 2001 |
66.6% |
33.4% |
| 2004 |
65.7% |
34.3% |
| 2007 |
65.4% |
34.6% |
| Sources: 1922-1989 data from Wolff (1996). 1992-2007 data from Wolff (2010). |
...
| Table 6: Distribution of income in the United States, 1982-2006 |
|
|
|
Income |
|
Top 1 percent |
Next 19 percent |
Bottom 80 percent |
|
1982 |
12.8% |
39.1% |
48.1% |
|
1988 |
16.6% |
38.9% |
44.5% |
|
1991 |
15.7% |
40.7% |
43.7% |
|
1994 |
14.4% |
40.8% |
44.9% |
|
1997 |
16.6% |
39.6% |
43.8% |
|
2000 |
20.0% |
38.7% |
41.4% |
|
2003 |
17.0% |
40.8% |
42.2% |
|
2006 |
21.3% |
40.1% |
38.6% |
|
|
|
From Wolff (2010). |
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/18/2010 12:16:51 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 5/18/2010 4:41 PM (GMT -6) | | | Blatant ignorance. Disingenuousness. One-sided ethical concern. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/18/2010 5:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Right on time. Hi, Asher.
How about you go ahead and spell out your frustration. 
And, my dearest brother, please specify the disingenuousness.
BROTHER.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/18/2010 5:46:03 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 5/18/2010 7:02 PM (GMT -6) | | The disingenuousness would apply to Daniel, here:
Jeff: "That's why prices of things were modified to take the year of jubilee into account. They KNEW it was coming and adjusted accordingly."
Daniel: "And that usually turned into a "modification" to continue to lend with interest, and use exploitative business techniques. They KNEW it was coming, and worked as hard as possible to minimize it's effects!
John Howard Yoder talks about the prominence of the prosboul, and it's relation to Jubilee. Prosboul was a legal document used to transfer debts around the year of Jubilee. This was a construct of the Pharisees.
This was what happened when they "adjusted accordingly".
This is all Jubilee related. The sabbath year, like the sabbath day, was meant to liberate people, not enslave them. But when you begin to COMPENSATE for MANDATORY credit clearing, the entire system is undone, and jubilee becomes worthless.
This take combines ignorance, disingenuousness, and one-sided ethical concern.
It is ignorant in that it doesn't take account of the whole story. It is disingenuous in that it twists Jeff's use of the phrase "adjusted accordingly", which is meant to convey equity, and turns it into a meaning that is the epitome of inequity. It shows one-sided ethical concern in that "the poor" are given special status over against "the rich"
No one denies that those who have power MAY and often do USE that power to benefit themselves unjustly. And Daniel's examples show instances of that. And it is deplorable. But he makes the mirror image fallacy of what he accuses others of doing.
Daniel: "And the cultural power of the Work Ethic pushes us to insane conclusions, like "they're just lazy, if they worked hard they could be just like us". As if the construction of our wealth doesn't come at the price of their broken backs."
Mirror image Daniel implies that all or most of the rich in Israel (and by extension today) flouted the institution of Jubilee.
The rich and the poor are alike in that they are both instances of HUMAN BEINGS. And human beings, with their capability of free will, often break moral and ethical boundaries. There are people, whether they be rich or poor, who will do what they think they can get away with, without reference to what is ethical. There are people, whether they be rich or poor, who will restrict themselves by the ethical.
The poor have no special standing ethically.
What Jeff was pointing out was how the lenders took Jubilee into account so that they would not be shorted what was DUE THEM. Yes, DUE THEM!
Interest is payment for a commodity. It is payment for TIME. You can make use of MY money NOW, I will delay my use of that money til LATER, in exchange for YOUR payment of interest. Take this away, and there is no incentive to lending, and the poor would have even less access to finance than they already do.
None of this in any way denies that a lender can act unethically and with exploitative business techniques. It just points out that to lend money and expect 1)payment for your time delayed use of your money and 2) repayment of the principle is in no way unethical.
So, this was largely aimed at Daniel. BUT...
there are some finer points between you (Dwayne) and I that would require hashing out of definitions, etc to discern whether we disagree or not. Probably so, but I don't want to just assume...
For example, when you say this:
---------
"First thing to go is...guess what...any concept of ABSOLUTE SELF-OWNERSHIP. If "all men are created equal" (implying a Creator)...AND it can be said that the Creator owns everything that has been created, then we CANNOT own ourselves. Period.
Think about if the Church REALLY took that seriously. You do NOT have your body, property, or whatever do just do what YOU want with it...because it really AIN'T yours.
Isn't part of the whole abortion thing is some women saying that they have a RIGHT to do what they want with their OWN BODIES? Hmmm...
The only way a human being can be "strong enough" to give away everything they have is to be FREED from the illusion of absolute (self)ownership."
---------
What does ABSOLUTE SELF-OWNERSHIP mean that is not found in just self-ownership? Is there some content to absolute self-ownership that is not found in self-ownership?
To own something means that you can legitimately make use of it.
It is debatable whether God intends by creation to retain sole ownership of creation. Especially in light of the fact that He doesn't NEED any part of creation to sustain Himself. I think that the investiture of free will at least points toward the possibility of ownership of creation by creatures. If by ABSOLUTE you mean that no part of creation can be so owned by other than God so that that part of creation is ripped from God's realm...then yeah, I agree with you that ABSOLUTE self-ownership or ABSOLUTE ownership of anything else is ridiculous. But I think you mean something else than that, and that's where we will probably disagree.
Self-ownership is proven methodologically. In other words, the only method whereby my higher human faculties can be activated is the self. I think. I intend. I will. I do. And no one can absolutely force me to engage those faculties if I don't want to. You can threaten me, and under duress, I might do what you want me to do...but it is still me that has to do the activating of those faculties. You cannot think for me, intend for me, will for me, or do for me. I own those aspects of myself so fully that I am the only one that can engage them. That is a large part of what it means to BE me.
"all men are created equal"
if this means that all men have the same ontological value and standing before God, then we agree. If it doesn't mean exactly that, then it is only well used propaganda. Men are not equal. Some people are physically beautiful, and benefits accrue. Some people are not, and they are treated rather differently. Some people are intelligent and some are not. Some people have strength, others are weak. With regards to these things all men are not created equal.
"AND it can be said that the Creator owns everything that has been created, then we CANNOT own ourselves. Period."
This doesn't follow at all. Self-ownership is what is keeping that last soul in hell from making our mutual love of UR from being 100% The creature rejects God. God respects the rejection. God doesn't own that one. All creatures owned by God are bond, love-slaves...that have bonded THEMSELVES to God. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/18/2010 7:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Asher,
Asher: What Jeff was pointing out was how the lenders took Jubilee into account so that they would not be shorted what was DUE THEM. Yes, DUE THEM!
Daniel: I'm afraid you don't understand Jubilee. Sorry. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/18/2010 7:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Asher,
I'm going to mix your post up a little bit, because something you say later sheds some light on your earlier comments:
Asher: "all men are created equal"
I'm not really sure what the Constitution has to do with ethical/moral concerns from a Christian perspective. But this seems to be your paradigm starting point for your discussion concerning the ethical consideration of the poor, and I'm inclined to think it's a poor starting point for this particular discussion.
However, if we want to being from the Bible, which seems to be a logical starting point considering Christian ethical/moral considerations ought to begin there. I'm not ruling out tradition, but the Bible is a rather universal starting point.
Now, does the Bible have any special considerations for the poor?
Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.
Deut. 26:12. When you have finished paying the complete tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and the widow, that they may eat in your towns, and be satisfied.
Lev. 19:19ff. Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God.
Prov. 31:8ff. [Commandment to kings.] Open your mouth for the dumb, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.
Is. 58:66ff. Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into the house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
Jer. 22:3. Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.
Luke 12:33. "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."
Luke 3:11. And [John the Baptist] would answer and say to them, "Let the man with two tunics share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise."
Mt. 5:42. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
Prov. 22:9 He who is generous will be blessed, for he gives some of his food to the poor.
Jer. 22:16 "Did not your father eat and drink, and do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He pled the cause of the afflicted and needy; then it was well. Is that not what it means to know Me?" declares the LORD.
Prov. 19:17. He who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD, and He will repay him for his good deed.
Jer. 7:5-7. "For, if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly practice justice between a man and his neighbor, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place, nor walk after other gods to your own ruin, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever."
Is. 58:10. "And if you give yourself to the hungry, and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then your light will rise in darkness, and your gloom will become like midday. And the LORD will continually guide you, and satisfy your desire in scorched places, and give strength to your bones; and you will be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water whose waters do not fail."
Luke 14:12-14. "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and repayment come to you. But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."
Luke 12:44. "Sell your possessions and give alms; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
Mt. 19:20ff. The young man said to Him, "All these commands I have kept; what am I still lacking?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
Perhaps most strongly: Prov. 14:31. He who oppresses the poor reproaches his Maker, but he who is gracious to the needy honors Him.
Asher: The poor have no special standing ethically.
Daniel: Really? I guess if your ethics is completely detached from biblical influence then sure. And I don't mean that as insulting, I simply mean if your use of "ethics" is within the realm of complete rationalism. But I'm not really sure why such a perspective would be useful/helpful to us.
Asher:The rich and the poor are alike in that they are both instances of HUMAN BEINGS. And human beings, with their capability of free will, often break moral and ethical boundaries. There are people, whether they be rich or poor, who will do what they think they can get away with, without reference to what is ethical. There are people, whether they be rich or poor, who will restrict themselves by the ethical.
Daniel: Yes. Wealth or poverty does not necessitate vice or virtue. But what does this have to do with what we're talking about? We're discussing systemic problems that oppress the poor. Certainly there are non-oppressed that aren't actively (consciously) participating in the oppression of the poor. I don't really see the point of this objection.
I'm certainly not trying to be disingenuous. But your hostility certainly makes me not want to discuss with you. (btw, you realize that referring to someone in the third person, as opposed to the subject being addressed, when you're directly responding to them is rather patronizing, right?)Post Edited (Daniel M) : 5/18/2010 7:33:55 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/18/2010 9:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Jeff,
I completely agree. Government is not our hope. Nor is liberalism or socialism, or any other political theory.
On a side note:
Did anyone actually read the article? I Just get the feeling no one is addressing the topic that is being discussed in the OP: The Work Ethic and Labor. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 5/18/2010 10:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel: "I'm going to mix your post up a little bit, because something you say later sheds some light on your earlier comments:
Asher: "all men are created equal"
I'm not really sure what the Constitution has to do with ethical/moral concerns from a Christian perspective.
Hey D, you shouldn't have invoked the Constitution!
Seriously though, Daniel...There is one Creator, one reality, what's ethical is ethical no matter where it comes from.
All the verses you mention (as if I wasn't aware of them all) do not give the poor a special ethical standing. What those verses do is call attention to the fact that the poor, unlike the rich, when they are oppressed have little recourse, and so to act ethically (not specially ethical, just ethical) towards them is to offer assistance to them.
Now, in the rare occasions, when the usual system of things is turned upside down...say, the French Revolution...when the poor have taken control and now have the power to be the oppressors...and they indiscriminately oppress the rich...well, the ethical thing to do then is to lend assistance to the oppressed rich.
See, the real issue is to assist the oppressed. And because that usually means "the poor" you have confused the edicts, as if the poor have a special ethical standing that doesn't apply to everyone. And see, this is where the proper understanding of the term "all men are created equal" comes into play. All men have the same ethical/moral standing before God. All men are to be treated justly. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/18/2010 10:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Asher,
Asher: Seriously though, Daniel...There is one Creator, one reality, what's ethical is ethical no matter where it comes from.
Daniel: Ontological definitions of ethical (what's ethical is ethical regardless of its source) are tautological, and not really helpful. Of course tautological does not necessitate they aren't sound. However, I was trying to specify what sort of "ethics" you were employing. Kant's employment of ethical is verty different from most other Christians. For Kant ethics was utterly rationalized. Ethics can mean different things in different contexts. Your use of ethical seems to be rather broad.
Asher: All the verses you mention (as if I wasn't aware of them all) do not give the poor a special ethical standing.
Daniel: I think we're talking past each-other. The poor have no special ethical standing in terms of what they do. They can steal, murder, rape, etc. just as easily and volitionally as any wealthy person. However, the poor (the needy, the widows, orphans, etc) have special ethical standing in terms of who we defend, help, give to, abandon ourselves for.
Asher: What those verses do is call attention to the fact that the poor, unlike the rich, when they are oppressed have little recourse, and so to act ethically (not specially ethical, just ethical) towards them is to offer assistance to them.
Daniel: Certainly, except there seems to be more going on. There is a lot of talk in those verses about oppression. And more often than not it is the rich who oppress the poor. The "rich" can take the form of government, corporations, royalty, aristocrats, etc. Oppressive forces are commonly aligned with material wealth. This does not mean that wealth necessitates an oppressive, cruel person. This is a systemic problem. The concept of accumulation of personal, private property being the central point of debate. Accumulation of private property is directly linked to labor (the means of acquisition of property). And the Gospel of Work (see the article I linked to) is directly connected to the problems that arise within a capitalist system. It's the oppression of labor to acquire commodified goods. The need to Work without play. The need to simply labor.
Asher: See, the real issue is to assist the oppressed. And because that usually means "the poor" you have confused the edicts, as if the poor have a special ethical standing that doesn't apply to everyone
Daniel: To whatever extent someone is oppressed within whatever system they are located in, they need to be redeemed. What am I suggesting applies to the poor that doesn't apply to everyone? The rich/poor dichotomy is simply ONE system from which oppression arises. Just because that is the system I am discussing at the moment does not mean that there aren't other systems that people need to be redeemed from. There are systems from which the rich need to be redeemed. But the idea of wealth, labor, work, is a particular system. The poor are the ones oppressed within that system (the oppressors are oppressed in a different, perhaps more subtle way). So within that system, it is the poor that require attention because it is the poor who are oppressed.
Asher: All men have the same ethical/moral standing before God. All men are to be treated justly.
Daniel: I'm utterly confused. I honestly am not sure why this is relevant at all. Did you read the article? Please do. The idea of equality of men before God is a completely different discussion that requires completely different terminology and paradigms.
Edit: Think of "special" more as focus rather than superior. The poor (in this discussion, the working class, would be more accurate) are the center of focus for our ethical concern within the system of wealth, poverty, and labor.Post Edited (Daniel M) : 5/18/2010 10:59:16 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/19/2010 9:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey One Love,
One Love: Ooops. Sorry, Daniel. Didn't mean to complicate things with my stream of consciousness there. Sorry.
Daniel: No worries. I'm pretty sure things were confused long before that
One Love: The Work Ethic (in various ways) stifles the freedom of the human spirit by making work an issue of "progress" and "productivity" rather than of opportunity creatively used for God-directed beautification of Creation...and this makes things that much harder to use the structures of work in truly liberational ways for those who most need it (which IS God's concern, biblically speaking.)
Daniel: Spot on.
One Love: if we wanted we could talk about the difference of Adam "tending the garden" BEFORE the fall and eating "by the sweat of the brow" AFTER the fall...and how that's linked in here.
One Love: The work without rest.
Daniel: I think The implications of this flow in a number of different directions. What does work with rest mean in a concrete society? At the end, McCarraher talks about the "now-but-not-yet" aspect of the kingdom. To what extent should we be trying to actualize kingdom politics within the world around us? (And I'm using politics in a much broader sense then ideas about government). What does it look like for Christians to implement the verses I cited above?
In a country where the majority of the population is (as good ol' Marx would say) alienated from their labor, how do we reintegrate work and play? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/19/2010 6:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Jeff,
I'd really suggest just taking a look at the article. It's a less than 10 minute (maybe even 5 minute) read.
Opening paragraph:
EM said...
Reflecting on the misery of industrial England in the 1840s, Thomas Carlyle mixed acute discernment with moralistic perversity. Capitalism, he wrote in Past and Present (1843), bore "the Gospel of Mammonism," in which money, through its "miraculous facilities," held its devotees "spell-bound in a horrid enchantment." That's a nice encapsulation of capitalism's grotesquely religious character, akin to Marx's later exposition of "commodity fetishism." But in the face of that "Gospel"—whose fruits Friedrich Engels would judge in The Condition of the Working Classes in England (1845)—Carlyle recommended, not the apostasy of revolution, but an evangel of Work. To his tired, hungry, sweated countrymen, Carlyle delivered a sermon on that "unpreached, inarticulate, but ineradicable and foreverenduring Gospel: Work, and therein have well-being."
That's quite an admonition to people already burdened with twelve-or-more-hour days, but Carlyle continued to bless the sweat of Adam's curse as the beads of beatitude. | | Back to Top | | |
| 51 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:03 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|