Featured In Defense of Social Justice

No problem. You are correct. Our relationships with the brethren take priority (apart perhaps those of immediate family) in our lives.

Social injustices and their alleviation are usually used by Jesus as lessons taught pointing to a greater theme.

The OT nation of Israel was a theocracy, so it was expected of the individual to help in the alleviation of physical needs when possible, countryman first and then the "stranger".

Today, it's up to the believer. Personally I like to give to missions which do both - aid both aspects of life spiritual and physical.

Remembering Jason Nightingale of Wordsower International

BTW this is a debate forum - be careful what you say, you just might be challenged

 

XXXVIII. Of Christian Men's Goods, which are not common.
The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same; as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

In context, all "established" versions of Christianity maintained a church-state alliance and required oaths of allegiance to church & state which anabaptists could not give, as independent baptists gave their first allegiance to the Lord Jesus. They were outcasts, suffering persecution & it is recorded that they shared what possessions they had.

See "The Reformers & their stepchildren" which is a very informed study of those who did not conform.

 

Further the "Act of uniformity" which is still in CofE Prayer Books prescribes prison for all non-conformists (Presbyterians, Independents & Anabaptists, etc) if they deviate from the prescribed way of performing the sacraments.

These laws were applied in a draconian manner under King James & his son Charles 1 (resulting in the emigration of the Pilgrim Fathers, and the English Civil War) , and particularly viciously after the Civil War by Charles II who had 2,000 Puritan ministers expelled from their churches & forbidden to meet within 5 miles of any town. It even became an offence to assist with food or hear such ministers.

John Bunyan & Isaac Watts' father were among those godly men imprisoned under those laws. They were repealed in 1689, & Baptists celebrated with the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

As Peter declared to the Sanhedrin -

Act 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.
The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.
God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.
And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”​

And they responded -

33 When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them.
​

 

Did Jesus advise the "good Samaritan" to check the religious credentials of the victim before helping him?

When Jesus advised us to love our enemies, did he restrict such love to fellow Christians -

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.​

I find it extraordinary that you, Acts1:8not4me, should set the writings of Paul above the teaching of Jesus. I hope I've misunderstood you, but that's seems to be what you are saying.

Paul did confirm the words of Jesus. And he followed up his godly living advice in Galatians with -

Gal 6:10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.
​

We do have opportunity in our democratic society to help the poor & vote for Socialist candidates. I am a Labour Party member & friends with our local candidate. I support justice for the oppressed people of the world including the Palestinians & contribute to humanitarian organisations, particularly Christian ones like TEAR Fund, Barnabas & Open Doors.

I don't consider the religious standing of homeless people sitting outside shops hoping for gifts of food & money. I consider their need, & give in Jesus' name.

 

Your modus ponens confusion is due to faulty logic poorly informed by eisegesis, which may not be directly attributable to you, but perhaps to others who have so deeply influenced you.

 

You express a less nuanced approach than the Bible, perhaps because you are confused by the special case of the nation of Israel led out of Egypt.

Certainly any national government properly informed and influenced by a Christian worldview will be superior, but your idea of a Holy American Empire, though tempting, seems untenable, unjustifiable, biblically speaking. Again, you would need an all-Christian populace to implement anything of the sort.

 

No, you have it backward, and there has been no secret about it. You have been repeatedly warned in your threads that your position could very well lead to Sharia law or something very much like it. Perhaps you should shame yourself for not paying closer attention and heeding the warnings.

 

noun: modus ponens

1. the rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred.
2. An example of an argument that fits the form modus ponens: If today is Tuesday, then John will go to work.

 

The example isn't quite complete for those uninitiated:

An example of an argument that fits the form modus ponens:

If today is Tuesday, then John will go to work.
Today is Tuesday.
Therefore, John will go to work.​

This argument is valid, but this has no bearing on whether any of the statements in the argument are true; for modus ponens to be a sound argument, the premises must be true for any true instances of the conclusion. An argument can be valid but nonetheless unsound if one or more premises are false; if an argument is valid and all the premises are true, then the argument is sound.​

 

My logic may not be a rigorous example of modus ponens ....

Jesus said "Love your Neighbour."
MP logic - if that needy person is my neighbour - I must love & help her.
False MP logic - If she isn't my neighbour, I needn't help her.

His treatment of that outcast Samaritan living in adultery was a remarkable example of such love. With remarkable results - a town full of Samaritans became his followers.

Those immigrants are NOT my neighbours, nor do I want them to be.
IF they were my neighbours, I would move house.

As the UK Conservatives once had as an political slogan -

Vote Labour if you want a N----r for a neighbour.
​

Now the argument seems to be -

Jeremy Corbyn supports justice for the Palestinians, he's even prepared to hold peace talks with terrorists like Hamas & Irish Republican leaders & Moslems - he's an antisemitic terrorist himself.
In any case, his Socialist policies will make rich people poorer by forcing them to pay higher taxes. ​

 

What makes you think that you are going to get mercy from the communists?

 

The Seventh-day Millerites are communists. You are liable to post anything. First you say Revelation 18 and then you say that you never said that. You have sided with the enemies of the American people and have admitted yourself that you are a fan of the psychopathic murderer communist Che. Why should we think that you mean anything by social justice other than the usual death of your enemies? I don't know if you are the leader of the Seventh-day Millerites or merely a follower but if you were wise, you would leave that anti-Christian, anti-Semitic group and make your own way in the world unless they are paying you to troll.

 

Now, now, tell the truth, Mr. Zog.

 

Zog Has-fallen, you seem to have fallen prey to typical antichrist rhetoric that takes a good sounding phrase and applies it to evil practices. The progressive left is very good at this, e.g., “pro-choice” means widespread, legalized abortion, and now includes infanticide.

The only “social justice” movement of note, by name in the US, promotes all manner of sexual perversion, baby murder, child molestation, human trafficking, and destruction of the family and social order.

Of course mature Christians know what these phrases should mean. But in the current political climate, they do not mean what they should. They have been misappropriated. So, if you side with those using these phrases, you in effect side with evil. Don’t judge a book by its title.