 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/15/2010 10:21 AM (GMT -6) |   | I remember a discussion a while back that led to a vague conclusion about some sort of classical liberalism ( I say some sort, because classical liberalism has obvious flaws, and most of those flaws are overcome by sleight of hand rhetoric, or more rarely, genuine alterations). being the most aesthetically pleasing form of social organization.
I was reading an article by Eugene McCarraher (who is quickly becoming my favorite scholar on topics of labor/politics/capitalism/socialism), and I found a few things that resembled the discussion that was had on this board, and reminded me of the discussion and it's conclusions.
The article can be found here. McCarraher is primarily discussing labor, its relation to capitalism and the grotesqueness of the Work Ethic.
In response to critiques that suggest something along the line of 'we've never been richer, more comfortable, et cetera, because of the accumulation of wealth within capitalist systems' McCarraher responds:
McCarraher said...
Thanks to hard work, they scold, we're richer, more comfortable, healthier, and technologically adept. As is so often the case with the apologists of Mammon, historical illiteracy passes for "realism," and quantity becomes an intimidating surrogate for quality and morality.
Further, McCarraher gives an interesting example of a society that we should look towards for alternative conceptions of labor:
McCarraher said...
The probability that even those sympathetic to this vision may consider it quixotic is a sign of how effectively the Work Ethic has clouded our horizon of possibility. But as the Emilia-Romagna region of northeastern Italy demonstrates, the prospect is by no means utopian. Known as "the Red Belt" for its doggedly Left politics, the Emilia-Romagna features an economy dominated by cooperatives and worker-controlled industries, whose artigianti work fewer hours than Americans and maintain some of the highest standards of craftsmanship in the world. (If you must know, their "productivity" as measured by gdp is among the highest in the European Union—which is to say, in the world.) The political culture—a judicious combination of Catholic subsidiarity and socialist universalism—enables an abundant and exquisite provision of education, health, and other social services, while the culture of labor allows workers to emulate the artisan and the epicure. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/15/2010 8:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Jeff,
Jeff: I was always impressed with the Amish for certain aspects of the culture. Then I found out things about them that were truly disturbing.
Daniel: I'm not sure why that should make the certain aspects of their community any less impressive. Unless those aspects necessarily lead to the disturbing things. McCarraher is talking about specific labor related politics that affect various aspects of social life (social services). It doesn't follow that just because this aspect of their community is good and worth considering, that other aspects of their community are good and worth considering (they may well be, but it's irrelevant either way to the point McCarraher is trying to make).
Jeff: Cultural sanctions can be more oppressive than governmental ones
Daniel: Sure, but what's that got to do with anything? Governmental sanctions can be more oppressive than cultural ones. Sure, but what's that got to do with anything?
Jeff: We need more information before getting all excited about such superficial descriptions of culture
Daniel: Certainly, but how is the idea of labor treated superficially in that article? How is his analysis of that specific culture concerning the specific topic of labor superficial? Certainly it's not exhaustive in its analysis of the culture, but his point was that labor is treated differently, and it works. The article is about the Work Ethic, and why it's oppressive. The work ethic is a cultural phenomenon, not governmental, and as you say, cultural sanctions can be more oppressive than governmental ones. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.Post Edited (Daniel M) : 5/15/2010 8:18:09 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/17/2010 6:47 AM (GMT -6) | | | Here's what I'm getting at. Supposedly we're doing comparative studies to see what the best form of government is, not just the best governmental policy for economics. Economics is not all there is to making ALL people happy, though it is a very large part of what makes SOME people happy. So while I would agree with Asher that a free-market system will be better than a non-free one for the most part, there are other moral virtues that a society needs to make that BE THE CASE. IOW, if all people were doing the golden rule, a free market would naturally result, IMO. But there would also be more voluntary charity, etc.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/17/2010 9:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Jeff:
Jeff: Supposedly we're doing comparative studies to see what the best form of government is
Daniel: Sort of, but that over-simplifies the issue. It goes all the way down to cultural tendencies. The embedded liberalism in the west has created an environment where the autonomous individual is the most important, nay, the ONLY important social construction. It begins with the autonomous individual rather then a community. Most social organization outside of liberalism doesn't acknowledge the autonomous individuals as the foundation of society. It beings with the community. Liberalism and it's counter-parts are much more ubiquitous than mere "government". More often then not the discussion takes place in social theory rather than political science.
Jeff: So while I would agree with Asher that a free-market system will be better than a non-free one for the most part, there are other moral virtues that a society needs to make that BE THE CASE
Daniel: Asher's idea of the free market is...convoluted, if not confused, to say the least. He disagrees with the primary champions of liberalism on some pretty key points, I'm not really sure what Asher's idea of "free market" means. All I know is that it has something having to do with less government, or no government at all. But it requires that people follow certain ethical/moral virtues, but that creates "cultural sanctions" (to use your words), and as you aptly pointed out, cultural sanctions can be more oppressive than governmental ones.
Jeff: if all people were doing the golden rule, a free market would naturally result, IMO. But there would also be more voluntary charity, etc.
McCarraher: Thus, as the contemplative mysticism of commodity culture, consumerism is also a form of imaginative labor that fuels the political economy of accumulation. Conservative moralists in particular don't like to acknowledge that the accumulation of capital requires the proliferation of consumer desires. We must spend money, we must enjoy ourselves, lest the whole apparatus of production and employment totter and collapse through attrition....On the production end of consumer culture—the part that's routinely forgotten in the irrepressible urge to moralize—there's the travail of advertisers, market researchers, and public relations specialists; the ranks of service workers, shackled in their compulsory cheerfulness; the cubicled proletariat ever-ready to take your order, assist you today, or field your petty complaint. (Not to mention the billion-strong anawim who, according to business apologists, should be downright thankful for the ill-paid privilege of sewing our shirts and sneakers.) The other name of Consumer Culture is the Republic of Customer Service, which is to say that talking about consumerism is a way of not talking about capitalism.
Daniel: I'm really not sure what free-market you're talking about. The domination of the free-market in the west has kept the world largely as it has been for the last few thousand years. The rich (Euro-America) are comfortable and happy, and the poor are dirty, disregarded and abused (if not demonized). 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.Post Edited (Daniel M) : 5/17/2010 9:47:33 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 5/17/2010 6:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel,
Because you cannot tell the difference between a free market and a market that is co-opted by the state, such as ours largely is, entails that my views of free markets appear convoluted. I get that. The state/business cabal has set the structure of even the language of economics so that very few people know what they are talking about in the area of economics, you included. So no wonder that you do not understand when someone talks about libertarian free markets.
"He disagrees with the primary champions of liberalism on some pretty key points"
Yep, I certainly do. They are largely wrong. And the socialist camp is largely wrong. And because most people think there are only two sides to the issue, other viewpoints are defined out of existence...or at least that is what happens functionally.
"I'm not really sure what Asher's idea of "free market" means."
Pretty simple really. What is unlawful, is unlawful for all...i.e. coercion, fraud, etc. There are laws in place with reference to such activities, and they should be enforced...on EVERYONE! No exclusions. Otherwise...the government should stay out of economics. Just as a major source of freedom has been the principle of separation of church and state. I believe a major source of freedom is the principle of separation of state and economics. There should be no laws either restricting or advancing business. (not counting what I have already said applies to everyone...If a business pollutes, it should be subject to lawsuits the same as if I am your neighbor and I continually pollute your property.) Also, government should not enter the market itself, for example Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, etc...it dilutes the market, puts a heavy influence on all businesses to follow unsound governmental practices, etc.
"All I know is that it has something having to do with less government, or no government at all. But it requires that people follow certain ethical/moral virtues, but that creates "cultural sanctions" (to use your words)"
Government should stay in it's proper place, that place is not economics. Any society that has a majority of people that do not follow ethical/moral virtues is headed for destruction. But, once again, societal sanctions should not be such that it interferes with economic activity. If coercion and fraud are governed in a society that should take care of 99% of the problems that we see in the business world. Most other types of economics sanctions that a society and/or a state force upon its people are intended to blur the field of vision so that the state and/or the power brokers of a society can skim the wealth for themselves. I do think that pretty much every state has acted thusly, and that is why I am skeptical of government in general (well, one of the reasons anyways)
"cultural sanctions can be more oppressive than governmental ones."
I don't know what exactly your point is here...I can turn it around and it make just as much sense
governmental sanctions can be more oppressive than societal ones
Both statements are true. But when we look at the broad sweep of history, it is pretty clear, as long as one knows the difference between what is state and what is societal, that state sanctions have been more oppressive than societal ones. Usually what we see happen is collusion between state power and societal power so that both are further entrenched and made wealthy.
Illegitimate sanctions, whether enacted by a state or a society, have pretty much the same ill effects on economic activities.
"I'm really not sure what free-market you're talking about. The domination of the free-market in the west has kept the world largely as it has been for the last few thousand years"
Exactly! You don't know what a free market is. And that is further illustrated by your reference to "The domination of the free-market in the west has kept the world largely as it has been for the last few thousand years"
What you are referencing is not a free market. It is a mixed market, with heavy governmental influence.
They (mixed market power brokers) want you to believe that what they are doing is free market activity. That allows them to pilfer the philosophical heritage of the true free market thinkers. And wrap themselves in the garments of free market, that once had great respect for it's contribution to freedom and wealth production.
The socialists want you to believe that the mixed market power structure is the free market...because they can then point to the failures of the mixed market and decry them as failures of the free market.
Almost everyone involved is playing a big shell game, hiding what a free market actually is to further their own agendas.
If you would like to dispel yourself of the illusion, I recommend the writings of Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard...or pretty much any economist of the Austrian school. Lots of free media here:
mises.org/media.aspx | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/17/2010 9:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Asher,
Asher: Because you cannot tell the difference between a free market and a market that is co-opted by the state, such as ours largely is, entails that my views of free markets appear convoluted.
Daniel: Except ours is not largely co-opted by the sate. But then again, I'm not sure what you mean by co-opted. If by somewhat regulated, then sure. If by extremely regulated, then, nope. If you mean 'run by the state' then nope.
Asher: The state/business cabal has set the structure of even the language of economics so that very few people know what they are talking about in the area of economics, you included. So no wonder that you do not understand when someone talks about libertarian free markets.
Daniel: Luckily you're one of the enlightened few that sees through the conspiracy of the powerful to confuse even the language of the issue. Whew.... And here I thought that maybe it was just not everyone agrees with your definition of "free-market".
Asher: Yep, I certainly do. They are largely wrong. And the socialist camp is largely wrong. And because most people think there are only two sides to the issue, other viewpoints are defined out of existence...or at least that is what happens functionally.
Daniel: Okay. Who said there were only two sides of the issue? It certainly wasn't me.
Asher: Pretty simple really. What is unlawful, is unlawful for all...i.e. coercion, fraud, etc. There are laws in place with reference to such activities, and they should be enforced...on EVERYONE! No exclusions. Otherwise...the government should stay out of economics.
Daniel: But the government has to be involved to a certain degree to determine what is unlawful in the ever growing, dynamic, techno-revolution. I agree with you, a law is a law is a law. However, to say "otherwise..." leaves a lot of ambiguity. What does it mean to enforce an economic law? Does that (the universal enforcement of laws) have serious, and problematic repercussions on the economy as a whole, should we care about the health of the economy as a whole? Is the government responsible for the safety of the people? Does that safety include economic security? What does the government do when a company screws up, and could potentially destroy a large part of the costal regions in the gulf of mexico? Should the government be able to decide if such activities are legal at all? Should the government be able to enforce anti-prostitution laws? Should such laws even exist? How do you come up with a legal system that isn't seriously interconnected with the economic system?
Asher: There should be no laws either restricting or advancing business. (not counting what I have already said applies to everyone...If a business pollutes, it should be subject to lawsuits the same as if I am your neighbor and I continually pollute your property.)
Daniel: Uh, this seems to be a huge endeavor that could mean a lot of different things. What does it mean to "restrict" a business? Does that mean not allowing off shore drilling? Does that mean not allowing sweat shops? Does that mean enforcing minimum wage? Does that mean enforcing hour-restrictions for workers? Is it the governments role to protect workers? Is it within the governments responsibility to enforce anti-racism laws? Are businesses allowed to segregate their work force and pay people less or more depending on their race or sex? Considering mark-up and profit margins, these are all pretty relevant issues. A lot of businesses want to pay people as little as possible (I have worked for some of those companies, and they are in a number of law-suits concerning wage rates), is it restricting business to set a minimum wage?
Asher: Any society that has a majority of people that do not follow ethical/moral virtues is headed for destruction.
Daniel: Certainly. But I don't recall any enduring society that has had a majority of people follow ethical/Christian virtues. See the thread in which Tom wonders "where is Jesus" Most people don't. But a lot of the people who don't follow ethical/moral virtues are very, VERY, successful.
Asher: I do think that pretty much every state has acted thusly, and that is why I am skeptical of government in general (well, one of the reasons anyways)
Daniel: I'm with ya. But I don't see how that changes at all within the corporate world. And I don't see how a free-market eliminates corporate rule. Unless there is some sort of anti-trust laws. But then we have pesky government getting involved in economics. Nuts.
Jeff: Cultural sanctions can be more oppressive than governmental ones
Daniel: Sure, but what's that got to do with anything? Governmental sanctions can be more oppressive than cultural ones. Sure, but what's that got to do with anything?
Asher:I don't know what exactly your point is here...I can turn it around and it make just as much sense
governmental sanctions can be more oppressive than societal ones
Both statements are true. But when we look at the broad sweep of history, it is pretty clear, as long as one knows the difference between what is state and what is societal, that state sanctions have been more oppressive than societal ones. Usually what we see happen is collusion between state power and societal power so that both are further entrenched and made wealthy.
Daniel: I don't think you understand my use of the phrase, it was meant to be ironic. Might want to read the thread (it's not very long) before you post  But if what we usually see happen is a collusion between the two forces, how, exactly, is it easy to differentiate? Is the Work Ethic social or governmental? Did you read the article I linked to? And if we usually see a collusion, how is it that the state sanctions have been more oppressive? It would be more like the social sanctions enable government sanctions. Which doesn't place them in a hierarchy but within a system. Considering the idea of "state" is relatively new in human history, I'm going to say that your "broad sweep of history" comment doesn't really make sense. Unless you're using state in the non-technical usage, in which case it can mean anything you want. Which blurs the line even further, and complicates things even worse.
Asher: Exactly! You don't know what a free market is. And that is further illustrated by your reference to "The domination of the free-market in the west has kept the world largely as it has been for the last few thousand years"
What you are referencing is not a free market. It is a mixed market, with heavy governmental influence.
Daniel: Okay. I might not be with you on "heavy" governmental influence, we have SOME governmental influence, it's become much more visible in the last few years, certainly. And I'm on board with the idea that our government is in bed with corporate interests which is a problem, and not exactly up to the standards of the ideal liberalism. But, compromises seem to be par for the course when discussing political philosophy and concrete realities of political phenomena.
Asher: Illegitimate sanctions, whether enacted by a state or a society, have pretty much the same ill effects on economic activities.
Daniel: I'm not sure where this idea of illegitimate comes from. What/who determines what is illegitimate? Obviously it's not the government in your schema. Philosopher kings?
Asher: The socialists want you to believe that the mixed market power structure is the free market...because they can then point to the failures of the mixed market and decry them as failures of the free market.
Daniel: Fair enough. But, from what I remember, your only example of a free-market was that of Iceland, which was nebulous, and rather uninformative. There was little information concerning labor relations and property distribution. It seemed more of an aristocracy then anything else. If THATS what it means to be a free-market, then no thanks.
I'll take a look at your link in a bit. I don't have time for an intensive reading session atm.Post Edited (Daniel M) : 5/17/2010 11:13:59 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/17/2010 9:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey jeff,
Jeff: Best I can tell, truly free markets are good for the poor UNLESS the society is OTHERWISE immoral such that divisions amongst the poor prevent them from leveraging significant power in collective bargaining, boycotts, etc
Daniel: Watch out, you might be supporting unions. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/17/2010 10:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey One Love,
The question really is, what is a "free-market" and is it worth working towards? My vision of the redeemed society looks much more akin to a "socialist" perspective then a "liberalist" perspective.
McCarraher: If salvation means sharing in the life of God so far as rational creatures may, then salvation must mean, in part, the marriage, or rather the remarriage, of work and play; and if we are already privy to foretastes of the Kingdom here and now, then signs of its fruition must appear in playful, felicitous labor. That's emancipation, and the Gospel of Work is just another yoke from which the real gospel should relieve us. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/17/2010 11:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel. That's just FREAKY, dude. Freaky. No lie. I was in the car listening to NPR, riding along to pick up the wife. And I had this "thought": In God's Economy, work is play and play is work. THEN, later we went to the Minnesota Children's Museum with our daughter, and it had this quote on one of the walls...
"Play is the highest form of research." --Albert Einstein
And then YOU post this. Too cool. 
McCarraher: If salvation means sharing in the life of God so far as rational creatures may, then salvation must mean, in part, the marriage, or rather the remarriage, of work and play; and if we are already privy to foretastes of the Kingdom here and now, then signs of its fruition must appear in playful, felicitous labor. That's emancipation, and the Gospel of Work is just another yoke from which the real gospel should relieve us.
Where life (and work) is one big flow of creativity, freedom, enthusiasm, productivity, and excellence.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/17/2010 11:41:27 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/17/2010 11:50 PM (GMT -6) | | | Hey, Daniel. Would the "Eighth Day of Creation", as described by Berdyaev, be a suitable context for a truly free, just society?
The author thinks the "Eighth Day" is a "long way off." Personally, I think don't think so...not for Christians, at least. Everyone just has to wake up to the "one-story-ness" of the Uncreated/Created relationship in faith through (EO's view of) Grace.
And there it is.
Of course, easier said than done...
Man stands before the abyss of being or non-being. And he cannot dominate this abyss by his own powers: he needs help from above. This is a divine-human matter. And if in our time the very existence of man is threatened, if man is being torn apart, this is just because he has depended only on himself and his own powers. Man is passing through what is perhaps the most dangerous period of his whole existence. But I do not think that man's fate is quite hopeless. This hopelessness is only here, not in the beyond. For we believe that the world's history will not go on endlessly, that the world and history will end. But this means that we do not believe in the possibility of a final solution in this world, on this earth, in this our time. ... But this should not hinder man's creative action, and his realization of justice here and now, for man's creative acts will affect the end itself. The end is a Divine-human matter. And the final word, which belongs to God, will include a word of man, as well. --Berdyaev
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/17/2010 11:59:34 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/18/2010 6:42 AM (GMT -6) | | That's why prices of things were modified to take the year of jubilee into account. They KNEW it was coming and adjusted accordingly. There was no arbitrary decisions by magistrates as to their own subjective sense of justice. The land was GOD's. He could give it to the tribes in any way He deemed fit. The Torah spelled out HOW God intended that to be done. There is no doubt that CHARITY of some kind is NECESSARY in a fallen world. I've never argued otherwise. But God certainly allowed lots of bad stuff (liking becoming slaves) to happen to people until Jubilee because of their own or their ancestors vices. Our government does the same, but VERY UNJUSTLY.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 5/18/2010 6:45:01 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/18/2010 7:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Is this right, Jeff?
From a legal point of view, the Jubilee law effectively banned sale of land as fee simple, and instead land could only be leased for no more than 50 years. The biblical regulations go on to specify that the price of land had to be proportional to how many years remained before the Jubilee, with land being cheaper the closer it is to the Jubilee.
How about this for a thought:
All of the action of God's People are supposed to reflect their UNDERSTANDING that 1) everything is God's [and we are ONLY stewards] and 2) God believes in human freedom (Hence, his liberation of the Israelites and other peoples via Amos 9:7), and 3) God's people were SLAVES (in some way or another) who are FREED by God Himself and should relate out of that self-understanding. God is just about freeing people into right-relatedness...PERIOD.
“Are you not like the Cushites to me,
O people of Israel?” declares the Lord.
“Did I not bring up Israel from the land of Egypt,
and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir?
Wow. God delivering Israel's oppressive enemies. Interesting. Kinda like the woman from Sidon and Naaman from Syria. Heh. 
Judeo-Christian economic understanding should have these beliefs involved, yes? (I'm also thinking about the Church in Acts 2:42-47, but that's within the Body itself, I suppose.)
It's that ASSYMETRY again, Tom. Letting God's interests guide our own...which just happens to REVEAL our true nature as social, rational, emotional creatures. Think about the Ten Commandments. When the human heart is purified by God, wouldn't that be what happens NATURALLY for a fully human being? The Law will truly be written on human hearts. I think it the same thing with the Jubillee principle. Once the Jubilee "heart" exists in the people, then structuring society to maximize humanizing justice would be NATURAL, not COMPULSORY.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/18/2010 8:20:43 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/18/2010 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | | | A fee simple (or fee simple absolute) is an estate in land, a form of freehold ownership. It is the most common way real estate is owned in common law countries, and is ordinarily the most complete ownership interest that can be had in real property short of allodial title, which is often reserved for governments. Fee simple ownership represents absolute ownership of real property but it is limited by the four basic government powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat and could also be limited by certain encumbrances or a condition in the deed. How ownership is limited by these government powers often involves the shift from allodial title to fee simple such as when uniting with other property owners acceding to property restrictions or municipal regulation.
American property ownership is primarily "fee simple", right? Would this mean that the Jubilee sensibility, to some degree, clashes with the American sense of ownership and property rights? If there is a clash, which sensibility should a "little Christ" prefer?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/18/2010 8:28:42 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/18/2010 8:46 AM (GMT -6) | | | Side issue: Is this statement worth anything anymore?
Hmmm...thinking about America's "revolutionary" history. If there is ONE THING that America SHOULD be like Israel with, it's this: Our time as being OPPRESSED by others and LIBERATED from said oppression should inform our ideas of RESPONSIBLE FREEDOM (inseparable from equality and dignity) for ourselves and all others we relate to.
But I think many Americans are radically ahistorical in this respect. Like unto God's People right before Josiah heard from the Book and knew JUST HOW FAR the Israelites had drifted from their rooting.
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Micaiah, and Shaphan the secretary, and Asaiah the king's servant, saying, “Go, inquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found. For great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us.”
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/18/2010 8:59:25 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/18/2010 9:45 AM (GMT -6) | | I think a reading of John Howard Yoder would be awesome in this context.
books.google.com/books?id=jJStu5lqEXMC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=Jubilee+John+Howard+Yoder&source=bl&ots=fc0ABHa-AU&sig=rfRoosrlYrIAhUW8uUu9itzR6ps&hl=en&ei=dqTyS72XGsT6lwe3v4iIDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
That is his chapter on Jubilee.
There is a section on the redistribution of wealth, which is, I think, spot on:
"Before the invention of the machine, the only wealth of a people was constituted by the soil and the flocks. This is what today would be called capital. Evidently Jesus accepted voluntary poverty for the sake of the kingdom and he ordered his disciples to practice the jubilary redistribution of their capital: "all of these things, it is the Gentiles of the world who seek them. Your father knows that you need them. Seek rather the kingdom of God and all these things will be added to you. Do not fear, little flock, because your father has chosen to give you the kingdom; sell all that you have and give it as alms" No one doubts that he said this. All that has been debated is whether this redistribution of capital was commanded by Jesus for all Christians at all times and in all places or whether it was just a "counsel of perfection" directed to the saints.
Traditionally the church has chosen the second solution, the easy one. Only the person, the church says, who is the object of a very special vocation, for instance the monk or non, is called upon to abandon all property. The ordinary believer can be satisfied with "doing charity," i.e. distributing as alms a part of his income.
Such a position would be completely justifiable if Jesus had not been so severe precisely toward those who, in his time, considered it adequate to practice charity, namely the Pharisees. They did give the title of all income and that was not so bad. How few are the people who do as much today!
But Jesus considered the tithe insufficient: "Woe to you, hypocritical scribes and Pharisees, who pay the tithe of mint and anise and cummin after having neglected the most important points of the law: righteousness, goodness, good faith. This you should have practiced without neglecting that."
He goes on to defend his interpretation of that final scripture. It's an excellent read. If anyone is serious in doing political interpretations of Christianity, I think they need to at least have read Yoder. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/18/2010 10:05 AM (GMT -6) | | | Cool beans, Daniel. Like it. So this is the Acts 2:40-47 stuff of the early church, right?
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.
Last paragraph of the epilogue in Chapter 3..
The more normal line of interpretation, in response to this sincere question, was so normal that it did not occur to Trocme or to me to say so. It would be that the fundamental notion of periodic leveling would have been lifted, as Jesus appropriated it out of the Hebrew heritage, from the level of some practices implemented every seven years or forty-nine years. It would have become in Jesus' teaching a permanently defining trait of the new order. That would have been parallel to what Jesus did with other elements of the Jewish heritage. It would fit with what actually turned out to be practiced in the community he created.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/18/2010 10:11:44 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/18/2010 10:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Jeff,
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. | | Back to Top | | |
| 51 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:14 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 |
|
|