• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Social Justice

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
This thread is about what christian principles should guide a christian's attitude toward social issues, distribution of resources, economic institutinos, property, social wellbeing, poverty, class inequality and so on.

The old testament
Although not binding for christians, and although relative and for just one nation in a specific circumstance, we can still derive principles from the old law, the torah.

1. Jubilee laws: Leviticus 25, a redistribution every 7 and 50 years, debts are relieved, debt slaves are freed (whether or not they have worked of their debt), and land is redistributed. This shows that property was less important than social equality, and market contracts less important than social equality in the eyes of YHWH.

2. Gleaning laws: Deuteronomy 24, Leviticus 19, Land rights were not aboslute, you're land belonged to the poor as much as it belonged to yourself, you're reaping of the land was regulated so that the poor had rights to it as well.

3. Tything: Deuteronomy 24, the tything laws, went to the temple, they were not the tax from the king, they were specifically for the temple who distributed to the needy, meaning that social justice, providing for the poor was necessary, not left up to the whims of the wealthy.

You also have the COUNTLESS texts about the poor, and justice (Justice in Hebrew mishpat and tsedaqah, zedaqaht refers to obligatory charity, charity meaning not just giving, but you're attitude toward others, Misphat refers to an obligation to do whatever is necessary to increase the quality of a person’s welfare Justice, this is according to Jewish theologans), so justice is not just under the law having due process, it's ECONOMIC justice, social justice, and given the context of the scriptures, justice toward the poor, loving the widow and orphan and alien resident, righteousness toward the poor and so on.

There are 2130 verses in the old testament about the poor, almost ALL of them are about God's concern for the poor and demanding that his people show concern for the poor, and that God demans Justice (obligatory charity) for the poor.

Psalms 72 is a prayer for the kings, or public institutions, and it's clear,
Vrs 4 May he defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; may he crush the oppressor.
vrs 12 For he will deliver the needy who cry out,the afflicted who have no one to help.
Clearly it is the public institutions role to care for the poor.

Isaiah 5 a song about the vinyard, the economy institutions. And he condemns those farmers who grew there estates putting smaller ones out of buisiness, i.e. Class exploitation

Isaiah 65: 21, 22, puts out a vision of a better economy.
They will build houses and dwell in them;
they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
No longer will they build houses and others live in them,
or plant and others eat.
For as the days of a tree,
so will be the days of my people;
my chosen ones will long enjoy
the work of their hands.

This is EXACTLY pointing out a better system, one free of economic exploitation.

Soddom and Ghomorah were destroyed for their treatment of the poor, Ezekiel 16:49
“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
The guilt was the society, THAT was the reason YHWH destroyed those cities.

The prophetic tradition: Over and over again the prophets condemn the societies treatment of view of the poor, I can't list all the verses, there are literally thousands.

But here are some examples. Amos 4:1
"Hear this word, you cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria,
you women who oppress the poor and crush the needy
and say to your husbands, “Bring us some drinks!”
Isaiah 1:21-23
"See how the faithful city
has become a prostitute!
She once was full of justice;
righteousness used to dwell in her—
but now murderers!
22 Your silver has become dross,
your choice wine is diluted with water.
23 Your rulers are rebels,
partners with thieves;
they all love bribes
and chase after gifts.
They do not defend the cause of the fatherless;
the widow’s case does not come before them."

The whole city was implicated in their sins against the afflicted.

Isaiah 58:3

‘Why have we fasted,’ they say,
‘and you have not seen it?
Why have we humbled ourselves,
and you have not noticed?’
“Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please
and exploit all your workers.

Exploitation of workers here undoes the pius deeds.

Then 6, 7
“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
7 Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe them,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?"

The exploitation has to end, and a community of sharing begin Notice, being free from oppression is contrasted with economic exploitation.

Then vrs 10

"and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday."

Piosness is onli accepted when you first work for social justice.

These were messsages to the whole nation, society as a whole.
I can go on to talk about Greed and so on. But I think my point is pretty damn clear. The Old Testament God is EXTREMELY concerned about social justice.
 
The New Testament:

The second most IMPORTANT law of Jesus was “love (agape) your neighbour as yourself.”
This is not the same as the common Golden rule, this isn’t simple tit for tat, this concerns your attitude, agape, sometimes translated as charity, refers to love based on principle, beyond merit or feeling, this would lay the basis for the core of Christian ethics, whatever you’re doing, especially in the social sphere, having active and positive principled love of neighbour should come only after love of God.
And according the the parable of the Samaritan, your neighbour is anyone that requires aid.

Matthew 25:31-46 – Only those that “feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, care for the sick, and care for the prisoners,” will enter the kingdom of God. And according to 31 this is a COLLECTIVE effort, since the son of man separates the nations. This is the way of the Christian.

Matthew 19:21, 24.
Jesus commands the rich man to sell all his possessions and give to the poor, the rich man doesn’t do it, Jesus then says that it’s almost impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven … WHY? Because they will not part with their riches and give to the poor.

Luke 11: 39-42
39 Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41 But now as for what is inside you—be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.
42 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.
The Pharisees are condemned for what? Greed, and neglecting Justice (we know what justice means in the context, concern for the welfare of others), and what should they do? Give to the poor.

1 John 3:16, 17
16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.
Here pity is obviously action, not just feeling, and sharing with the poor is an OBLIGATION for redemption.
Evem then more conservative Paul was concerned with Social Justice.

2 Corinthians 8:13-15
13 Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14 At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, 15 as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.”
So economic equality was a virtue for Paul, not just basic charity, but equality, that was the GOAL in the church’s economic policy.

1 Corinthians 12:25,26
25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
The Christian community, must have the motto, “an injury to one is an injury to all” (also the IWW moto).

1 Corinthians 11:17-34
The problem here was the inequality, people were getting drunk, while others were hungry, the communion is useless without equality among brothers.
Now we can go to James … The brother of Jesus, who’s letter reads like that of an old school radical revolutionary.

James 5:1-6
5 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.[a] 6 You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.
The profits made, the exploitation, the life of luxury while the poor one cry out, is what brings the wrath of God.

James 2:5-8
5 Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?
8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,”[a] you are doing right.
The poor are the ones to inheret the kingdom, and the rich are the one’s exploiting the poor, it’s clear what James thinks about class, he sees the rich as exploiters, and Christianity to be faith that favors the poor, and that love of neighbour, means solidarity.

Then 14-17
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
So faith means taking care of each other, having a community of mutual aid ….
Then We have how the first century church was organized.

Acts 2: 44-46
44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,

Acts 4:32-34
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Acts 5:1-10.
The ONLY time someone was killed in the NT by God, was someone who opposed this arrangement.

Acts 6:1-3
This shows that this was a permanent institution, and that it was taken seriously, so seriously that people were appointed to make sure no one was overlooked in the distribution.

CLEARLY a commune, private property was not a priority, or even an institution, communal control, sharing, and redistribution was the way of the early Church, this was the way the congregation in Jerusalem (and most likely most others) ran …. Now in the 1rst century Christians were a marginalized group, and not in control of the social institutions, but it’s logical that had they been, they would organize things in a similar manner, at least they would have the same priorities.

CLEARLY when Christians are in a position to effect how society treats the poor, how social institutions are made, whether or not property and wealth is put before equality and well being, they must follow the principles of the bible, and “love your neighbour as yourself,” “love justice and righteousness” and push for a more egalitarian and communitarian society.
 
Do these passages not specifically make it clear that ALL individuals (through their reverence for God), and not the gov't, are to assure charity? Are they not also instructed to exact their own revenge and to choose "wisely" to whom they give this charity?
 
Last edited:
Matthew 19:21, 24.
Jesus commands the rich man to sell all his possessions and give to the poor, the rich man doesn’t do it, Jesus then says that it’s almost impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven … WHY? Because they will not part with their riches and give to the poor.

I stopped right here, as two things appear very out of sorts with this "commandment". The instant that the "rich man" concedes, he is no longer rich and the instant that he "redistributes" ALL of his wealth (among those poor present?) he is then the poorest of them all. In the old testament, tything was the command of God (at 10%) yet, along comes God himself (via Jesus) saying that only 100% charitable giving is sufficient for "the rich man" to enter heaven. My question is "rich" relative to what/who? When must one "give it all" and to who?
 
Do these passages not specifically make it clear that ALL individuals (through their reverence for God), and not the gov't, are to assure charity? Are they not also instructed to exact their own revenge and to choose "wisely" to whom they give this charity?

In the old testament it is the government (as well as the temple which was a social institution, not just a religious one), as was clear in the law, and in the song of the king and in God's judgement if the nations.

In the new testament the christians never ran a government, however in the social institutions they DID run (the church), economic activity was a function and it was done communally and in an egalatarian way.

Also "charity" in the new testament is translated from "agape," which like the old tastament's word for justice means something different than it does now. Charity isn't just you giving money to a good cause, charity is a way of being, a way of interacting with other people, it's principled love, or unselfish love, it's not just action, its the way you think, the way you organize things, they way you interact and so on.

Also I'm not sure which passage you're refering to when you're talking about "choosing wisely" to whom they give some charity ...
 
I stopped right here, as two things appear very out of sorts with this "commandment". The instant that the "rich man" concedes, he is no longer rich and the instant that he "redistributes" ALL of his wealth (among those poor present?) he is then the poorest of them all. In the old testament, tything was the command of God (at 10%) yet, along comes God himself (via Jesus) saying that only 100% charitable giving is sufficient for "the rich man" to enter heaven. My question is "rich" relative to what/who? When must one "give it all" and to who?

The "ALL" part is my mistake, here is the text.

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Sorry about that.
 
In the old testament it is the government (as well as the temple which was a social institution, not just a religious one), as was clear in the law, and in the song of the king and in God's judgement if the nations.

In the new testament the christians never ran a government, however in the social institutions they DID run (the church), economic activity was a function and it was done communally and in an egalatarian way.

Also "charity" in the new testament is translated from "agape," which like the old tastament's word for justice means something different than it does now. Charity isn't just you giving money to a good cause, charity is a way of being, a way of interacting with other people, it's principled love, or unselfish love, it's not just action, its the way you think, the way you organize things, they way you interact and so on.

Also I'm not sure which passage you're refering to when you're talking about "choosing wisely" to whom they give some charity ...

There seem to be two distinct ways of giving described in the bible, one to the church (tything) and the other to directly to individual "neighbors" that you see to be in need help. Other passages address lending (impying repayment as due?) as well as outright giving. There are described limits upon that giving/taking, not all must be given freely, despite the needs of others as we have needs for ourselves (and our dependents) as well.

But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? - 1 John 3:17

If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother. But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth. - Deuteronomy 15:7,8

Creditors could not charge interest or keep garments (which provided warmth and doubled as one’s blanket at night), nor could they take the tools of a man’s trade as security for a loan. These provisions ensured people’s ability to earn a living and also prevented extreme hardships (Exodus 22:25-27; Deuteronomy 24:12-13).


As far as being selective in that giving this article adresses it, yet in typical biblical "wishy washy" fashion:

When Should We Love Sinners & When Should We Hate Them? by Plinio Corra de Oliveira
 
There seem to be two distinct ways of giving described in the bible, one to the church (tything) and the other to directly to individual "neighbors" that you see to be in need help. Other passages address lending (impying repayment as due?) as well as outright giving. There are described limits upon that giving/taking, not all must be given freely, despite the needs of others as we have needs for ourselves (and our dependents) as well.

Tything in the old testament was to the temple, not a church, which functioned very much as a socio-political/economic institution (infact as a central bank in some way), and the temple was an institution of economic distribution, NOT JUST religious service.

Also most of the passages don't refer to "giving," most refer to justice, in the NT it talks about giving, but in the larger context of a community of agape and "sharing" or communalism.

The passages about lending, are generally in reference to jubilees (as I pointed out), and making sure lending practices were done justly and in a way that benefited the poor, and NOT for profit.

As I said isn't necessarily about individual giving or individual needs, it's about how we interact in a community, how we structure our social outlook.


As far as being selective in that giving this article adresses it, yet in typical biblical "wishy washy" fashion:

When Should We Love Sinners & When Should We Hate Them? by Plinio Corra de Oliveira

That link is mainly about St. Augustinian theology, not really directly linked to scripture, but it's mostly about "hate the sin not the sinner, love the man not the sin" type of ethics, which I have no problem with, but isn't really relevant to the topic at hand.

Let me be clear, I am NOT saying that to be a Christian you have to be a socialist or a communist, or whatever. I am saying, you cannot have the ethical/economic philosophy of Ayn Rand, you MUST care about community, the poor, you must have self-sacrificing agape love and that must manifest itself in how you relate to society, the oppressed and exploited in society and how you influence the institutions of society.
 
This thread is about what christian principles should guide a christian's attitude toward social issues, distribution of resources, economic institutinos, property, social wellbeing, poverty, class inequality and so on.

In other words, "socialism".

Why do socialist and communist always try to hide thier point of view by not coming right out and stating it?
 
In other words, "socialism".

Why do socialist and communist always try to hide thier point of view by not coming right out and stating it?

If you consider that socialism ...
 
Tything in the old testament was to the temple, not a church, which functioned very much as a socio-political/economic institution (infact as a central bank in some way), and the temple was an institution of economic distribution, NOT JUST religious service.

Also most of the passages don't refer to "giving," most refer to justice, in the NT it talks about giving, but in the larger context of a community of agape and "sharing" or communalism.

The passages about lending, are generally in reference to jubilees (as I pointed out), and making sure lending practices were done justly and in a way that benefited the poor, and NOT for profit.

As I said isn't necessarily about individual giving or individual needs, it's about how we interact in a community, how we structure our social outlook.




That link is mainly about St. Augustinian theology, not really directly linked to scripture, but it's mostly about "hate the sin not the sinner, love the man not the sin" type of ethics, which I have no problem with, but isn't really relevant to the topic at hand.

Let me be clear, I am NOT saying that to be a Christian you have to be a socialist or a communist, or whatever. I am saying, you cannot have the ethical/economic philosophy of Ayn Rand, you MUST care about community, the poor, you must have self-sacrificing agape love and that must manifest itself in how you relate to society, the oppressed and exploited in society and how you influence the institutions of society.

Here is where we may differ: Charity is when I freely give (money or work) to help my neighbor in need, tyranny is when you demand (via gov't force) that I help your (non-disabled) neighbor in need. Now if our tax laws were changed such that ALL charitable giving was allowed as a tax credit, on a dollar for dollar basis, then I may agree to some use of public funds for charity.
 
Here is where we may differ: Charity is when I freely give (money or work) to help my neighbor in need, tyranny is when you demand (via gov't force) that I help your (non-disabled) neighbor in need. Now if our tax laws were changed such that ALL charitable giving was allowed as a tax credit, on a dollar for dollar basis, then I may agree to some use of public funds for charity.

I answered that already, most of my scriptures in my post were about how economic activity is organized to begin with, not what you do with you're individual end results.

ALso Charity is translated as agape, this is NOT freely giving, but instead a whole attitude toward others, also the hebrew word for justice is not voluntary charity, or what one feels like giving, it's obligatory. These verses I showed are what the scriptures say. When there was a nation of God the government was required to care for the poor and organize the economy in a way that put people before profits and social wellbeing before property, the same was for the first century congregation.

I get you're personal view and that's fine, but I'm talking about what the scriptures say.
 
Do these passages not specifically make it clear that ALL individuals (through their reverence for God), and not the gov't, are to assure charity? Are they not also instructed to exact their own revenge and to choose "wisely" to whom they give this charity?

Government is merely a collection of individuals tasked by other individuals to streamline labor and resources. Why do you invoke this nuance to justify not being charitable in direct contradiction to what you believe that god and Jesus have commended you to do?
 
I find it amusing how American Christian Conservatives have been so heavily influenced by capitalism, individualism and greed. Church leaders who believe in using the power of government to push their other views still embrace the idea that is somehow wrong to use the state to serve the needy. I don't support Christian Socialism, but I do wonder why people feel more comfortable with state-sanctioned persecution of gays than helping the poor.
 
ALso Charity is translated as agape, this is NOT freely giving, but instead a whole attitude toward others, also the hebrew word for justice is not voluntary charity, or what one feels like giving, it's obligatory. These verses I showed are what the scriptures say. When there was a nation of God the government was required to care for the poor and organize the economy in a way that put people before profits and social wellbeing before property, the same was for the first century congregation.

Were do you get that? Agape means "love" and most commonly as a very godly love.

You just make this stuff up.
 
Were do you get that? Agape means "love" and most commonly as a very godly love.

You just make this stuff up.

Agape isn't just love, there are 4 greek words for love, agape, eros, philia and storge.

Eros is romantic love, philia is friendship, storge is more natural love or family love, Agape however is more unconditional sacrificial love, or love based on principle.

Also "charity" in many bibles is translated from "agape" which although accurate, gives the wrong connotation of just "the action of giving things to a charity," it isn't that, it's a way of thinking a way of being.
 
Government is merely a collection of individuals tasked by other individuals to streamline labor and resources. Why do you invoke this nuance to justify not being charitable in direct contradiction to what you believe that god and Jesus have commended you to do?

Government is not "merely a collection of individuals" - it is a part of society that conducts its functions via coercion. Charity is voluntary, by definition.
 
Last edited:
I find it amusing how American Christian Conservatives have been so heavily influenced by capitalism, individualism and greed.

By capitalism - yes, in some of its aspects.
By greed - maybe, some of them.
By individualism - not in the least.

The Religious Right shares collectivist mentality with the Religious Left, and with socialists in general.
 
Do these passages not specifically make it clear that ALL individuals (through their reverence for God), and not the gov't, are to assure charity? Are they not also instructed to exact their own revenge and to choose "wisely" to whom they give this charity?

It's probably a matter of interpretation whether the Bible supports rather charity or government redistribution, as there was no such thing as a national government as we know it today, back in Jesus' times.

There are Christians who justify some redistribution with their faith and the Bible. For example the Christian Democrats in some European countries (i.e. in Germany, where they are the largest center-right party, governing (West-)Germany for most of the time). The German Christian Democrats even demanded "Christian socialism" in 1945-47, until they shifted to the idea of "Social Market Economy" (capitalism with certain social safety nets).

So yes, there are some Christians who believe redistribution via the government is a "Christian thing" to do.
 
Government is not "merely a collection of individuals" - it is a part of society that conducts its functions via coercion. Charity is voluntary, by definition.

So voluntarily vote in favor of programs that will accomplish charitable goals.

But no, you won't do that. You're invoking this "voluntary" factor as an excuse not to do it, and to restrict helping people to you personally writing a check to a charity that doesn't have the means to accomplish wide-scale or long-term change, mainly so that you can feel better about yourself. You're sacrificing efficacy so that you can reserve the ability to engage in an active act to get yourself soul points. Sacrificing the life and comfort of others to benefit yourself... clearly what Jesus would have done.
 
Government is not "merely a collection of individuals" - it is a part of society that conducts its functions via coercion. Charity is voluntary, by definition.

Look at my post, I wasn't talking about Charity, and again, the term translated Charity in the bible is "agape" which isn't the voluntary giving to others that the modern term "charity" connotates.

You're basically ignoring my entire post, and focusing in this strawman.
 
You're invoking this "voluntary" factor as an excuse not to do it.

No, I am invoking this "voluntary" factor because it is the basis of all human morality. You know, the Golden Rule and stuff.

I may agree that in some situations empathy should override morality, but making a virtue out your readiness to coerce other people to pay for what you think is good and charitable - that's a road to hell. And not, unfortunately, in any mythical-religious sense.
 
.You're basically ignoring my entire post, and focusing in this strawman.

And you know why? Because I was responding to a post by another person - namely, Paschendale.
 
And you know why? Because I was responding to a post by another person - namely, Paschendale.

Yes, and I was correcting your use of the term "charity," saying "charity" is voluntary by definition, using the hebrew term for it "tsedaqah" or the greek "agape," is like saying "justice" is voluntary by definition, it doesn't work, term in ancient greek and hebrew simple doesn't mean what it means today.

That was part of the point of this thread.
 
Yes, and I was correcting your use of the term "charity," saying "charity" is voluntary by definition, using the hebrew term for it "tsedaqah" or the greek "agape," is like saying "justice" is voluntary by definition, it doesn't work, term in ancient greek and hebrew simple doesn't mean what it means today.

That was part of the point of this thread.

Now, my Catholic years are far behind me, and the study of Hebrew was never my thing, but I remember distinctly that tsedaqah translates rather like "righteousness", i.e. doing what one must, and is not, indeed, voluntary (as long as one chooses to remain within the faith).

Well, getting rid of empathy as actual motivation for charity goes long way to explain the phenomenon of the Religious Left.
 
Back
Top Bottom