Originally posted by Taliesin:
My daughter was taught a 'free trade' game at school, in RE lesson.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Why? Free trade has been extremely damaging to a lot of developing countries, and Christian Aid are entitled to think that it is evil because of this. I share their opinion.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't have a problem with the name, per se. I don't think a charity with the name 'Christian' in it makes all other charities un-Christian or less Christian.
But a few years ago, I saw one of their leaflets. I don't recall the exact words on it, but I think it listed a number of 'evils' or a similarly emotive word. 'Drought', 'famine', 'disease' were all on this list, as one might expect, alongside 'free trade'. I thought that was an extremely offensive thing to put on a leaflet and I haven't given them any money since.
quote:Well you would (if I can say that in a non-patronising way). The claim that free trade is a bad thing is, in my view, a controversial political statement. It's also one that I don't happen to share. Generally speaking, I don't think charities should play politics. If they choose to do so, they face the consequence that people who don't share the political view they espouse will shun them, which is what I'll do from now on.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why? Free trade has been extremely damaging to a lot of developing countries, and Christian Aid are entitled to think that it is evil because of this. I share their opinion.
quote:I have taken this line with CA in the past, and I still agree that they cross the line too far into political doctrine. However, I think the good they do probably outweighs the bad, and I support them by collecting for them. Each year I vow will be my last, but every time it comes round I'm out annoying the neighbours. I don't enjoy it, and I don't know why I do it, but I just feel moved to it.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I haven't given them any money since.
quote:Economic justice and proper penalties for animal cruelty are hardline now?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well there's being political and there's being political. I'd suggest that the statement I've quoted would alienate a good number of Christians in Britain.
I think the RSPCA is a good example of how hard-liners with a distinct political agenda are hijacking charities. It's a worrying trend.
quote:It doesn't mean that Christians must never cooperate with non-Christian charities, or that there is no space for cooperation between Christian and non-Christian charities. It does cast Christian charity in a whole new light- we can by no means declare a secular aim Christian simply because its goals are compatible with the charity that proceeds from Christian faith.
Originally posted by Garasu:
But what does that mean?
Am I supposed not to give to charities that don't identify themselves as Christian? Should I give to all charities that do self identify?
How does it actually help me to discern whether to support Christian Aid?
quote:Jesus, in the parable of the sheep and the goats, says the opposite.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Worldly righteousness might be a very fine and praiseworthy thing, but unless it proceeds from faith it fails before God's judgment.
quote:Profoundly silly comment, if you don't mind me saying. Christian Aid is now widely known and recognised as an organisation with that name. Christian Aid week is about raising money for it. What do you expect them to call the week?
Originally posted by shamwari:
Christian Aid week starts on Sunday ( in the UK).
I wonder what Shipmates think.
I am not happy about the Title. Are not other Aid Agencies to be regarded as "Christian" in what they do even if they dissociate themselves from any religious affiliation? What is distinctively different about "Christian Aid"?
quote:Does it say that? I know that passage is frequently cited to say that, but it isn't really in keeping with the narrative.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Jesus, in the parable of the sheep and the goats, says the opposite.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Worldly righteousness might be a very fine and praiseworthy thing, but unless it proceeds from faith it fails before God's judgment.
quote:Get what?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Free trade. You just don't get it do you Anglican't ? Can't in fact. Or won't.
quote:But I'm guessing all the groups managed to make at least a few paper circles...? If so, the exercise showed that free trade can result in everyone getting something useful, if (an important 'if', I realise) they start with some resources. So free trade benefits everyone!
Originally posted by Taliesin:
By the end of the lesson, the group who started with the most resources won the game, and they were all suitably full of indignation at the unfairness and impossibility of winning, and so learnt something important.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
posted by Jade Constable
Most well-known charities are political to some degree - whether it's the RSPCA campaigning for tougher animal cruelty laws, or Shelter campaigning for regulation in the private rental sector. Part of advocating for people (or animals) is taking part in political campaigning, because politics affects everything.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:The parable starts by talking about all the nations. It can plausibly be interpreted as, 'everybody', or more likely 'Gentiles' (excluding Jews), or even more likely, 'non-ostensible followers of God' (excluding Christians as well as Jews). There isn't any way to interpret it as covering only ostensible Christians.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Both the sheep and the goats in that parable are ostensibly concerned with Jesus, but only those who care for the poor had sincere faith.
quote:I'm no fan of agricultural subsidies and I think the tariff barriers that the EU sets up should be torn down (hopefully tearing down the EU with it, but that's a different discussion).
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Firstly, so-called free trade is not free, but heavily stacked against the poorest countries in favour of the richest - just look at agricultural subsidies in the EU and the USA and compare this with how the IMF and World Bank insist on subsidies being removed in developing countries.
quote:If these facts, as stated, are correct, then the obvious solution to me is for coffee farmers to get out of the coffee farming business and to something else (and they should be supported in doing so). Subsidising unprofitable farmers in a declining market will surely lead nowhere? (Apart from Uganda's eventual bankruptcy.)
In Uganda, the price of coffee fell from US$0.63 per lb in 1999 to US$0.25 per lb in 2001.
• Coffee accounts for more than two-thirds of Uganda’s exports, so government revenue from its sale dropped by 36 per cent.
• Global trade rules and pressure from the IMF make it hard for the Ugandan government to increase the support or protection that it gives to its coffee farmers, so many of them are going out of business.
quote:I would suggest that the reasons for the continued problems in places such as Africa is because of serious structural problems in the countries concerned. For example,
Secondly, the reason why the rich countries are rich and the poor countries are poor isn't because of differences in intelligence, had work or abundant natural resources. Putting it bluntly it is because we developed technologically before they did and went and stole most of their stuff - land, mineral rights etc etc.
quote:I agree. What I've listed above are three, off-the-cuff but practical examples of why I think Third World economies lag behind. Campaigning on these issues would, I think, be more useful than whining about a global system of trade that has been around for centuries and isn't changing any time soon. Sadly, I can't see anything on the Christian Aid website about these very practical problems, but it's a big website with lots of detailed papers, so I'll keep looking.
You also have to address the underlying structural causes.
quote:I agree, Anglican't. It reminds me of the 'Did Thatcher destroy the UK mining industry?' discussion on here the other week.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I was intrigued by this section in Christian Aid's game:
quote:If these facts, as stated, are correct, then the obvious solution to me is for coffee farmers to get out of the coffee farming business and to something else (and they should be supported in doing so). Subsidising unprofitable farmers in a declining market will surely lead nowhere? (Apart from Uganda's eventual bankruptcy.)
In Uganda, the price of coffee fell from US$0.63 per lb in 1999 to US$0.25 per lb in 2001.
• Coffee accounts for more than two-thirds of Uganda’s exports, so government revenue from its sale dropped by 36 per cent.
• Global trade rules and pressure from the IMF make it hard for the Ugandan government to increase the support or protection that it gives to its coffee farmers, so many of them are going out of business.
quote:But not necessarily left wing.
Originally posted by Jade Constable
Christianity is inherently political
quote:The sheep explicitly did not know that feeding the poor was feeding Jesus. That they were unfamiliar with Jesus is simply not in the text. In both of the other parables in the discourse the distinction is clearly between prepared and ill-prepared disciples, and it's only natural to assume the last one is too.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:The parable starts by talking about all the nations. It can plausibly be interpreted as, 'everybody', or more likely 'Gentiles' (excluding Jews), or even more likely, 'non-ostensible followers of God' (excluding Christians as well as Jews). There isn't any way to interpret it as covering only ostensible Christians.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Both the sheep and the goats in that parable are ostensibly concerned with Jesus, but only those who care for the poor had sincere faith.
What's more the sheep explicitly do not realise that they were concerned with Jesus: they thought they were just feeding the hungry, etc.
quote:Yes, it's great. I used to use it with my classes, despite it taking a long time to set up.
Originally posted by Taliesin:
My daughter was taught a 'free trade' game at school, in RE lesson.
quote:It reminded me also of the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Jesus, in the parable of the sheep and the goats, says the opposite.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Worldly righteousness might be a very fine and praiseworthy thing, but unless it proceeds from faith it fails before God's judgment.
quote:That's not so easy, even with help. If you're a small-scale coffee farmer, you can't just start growing cotton next year because the coffee prices fell. The solution isn't subsidizing (I doubt that Christian Aid proposes this), it's making international trade more fair.
Anglican't: If these facts, as stated, are correct, then the obvious solution to me is for coffee farmers to get out of the coffee farming business and to something else (and they should be supported in doing so).
quote:Can we have a little context please? I know we want to say "This Jesus business isn't really important so long as we have charity," but is that what the Gospel writers are trying to say?
It reminded me also of the parable of the Good Samaritan.
quote:Well, the Parable says very clearly:
Zach82: Can we have a little context please? I know we want to say "This Jesus business isn't really important so long as we have charity," but is that what the Gospel writers are trying to say?
quote:Er, no? I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything. I mentioned tougher penalties for animal cruelty and reform of the private rental sector (not any specific reform). What has that got to do with tenants breaking the rules of their lease and leaving a mess, and no doubt causing animal suffering by having unfit conditions for them to live in? Did you miss the part where it was cruelty against animals that need tougher penalties and not protecting pet owners? I haven't even mentioned pet owners!
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
posted by Jade Constable
Most well-known charities are political to some degree - whether it's the RSPCA campaigning for tougher animal cruelty laws, or Shelter campaigning for regulation in the private rental sector. Part of advocating for people (or animals) is taking part in political campaigning, because politics affects everything.
Sorry Jade, but over the past weeks I've been giving an elderly friend a hand with a rental property the income of which forms their pension (the company they worked for didn't have a scheme).
Because of advancing years and increased legislation (MO Cert, Gas Safety & Electrical Safety certs, deposit protection legislation, etc, etc) they now use an agency to let and manage the small house...
This is what we found when the last tenants moved out
- backyard full of rubbish - and more empty bottles and cans than I've seen outside a recycling place
- front door lock superglued
- curtain poles pulled out of wall - only curtain to be found half-burnt in back yard
- extensive damp patch on wall near revolting cat litter tray (lease was "no animals")
- abandoned furniture in living room, plus bag of rotting rubbish with maggots
- all kitchen cupboards had been relieved of their shelves - nowhere to be found
- bathroom full of mould - fan disconnected and ventilator stuffed with newspaper
- the WC - there are no words... total replacement required
- carpets filthy - and covered in mud and cat hair
- 2 bedroooms have had Japanese manga cartoons drawn on the plaster with marker pen, remaining wallpaper shredded
- all light fittings broken
- fridge-freezer full of rotting food, doors wrenched off
The above is not complete, just a brief snapshot
The agent was meant to do quarterly inspections but was refused entry on last 2 occasions because "people are asleep": in any case, they've been told by "the council" that a landlord "cannot impose their own standards on tenants".
The deposit won't cover anything like the cost of putting the house to rights - estimates received so far come to approximately 4 times the amount of the deposit and we still haven't got to the bottom of the list.
We have deduced at least 2 cats from the variety of hair colours and the presence of 2 flea-ridden cat beds. Obviously they never went out since about the only litter or filth not in the backyard is cat faeces.
They left owing more than 2 month's rent - which money they had had as HB but not passed on. They put keys through the door of the agency knowing they were useless because of having glued the locks.
I wish this were a very isolated case but I know that it isn't.
Are these the "animal lovers" and (presumed to be beleaguered) private tenants you feel need protection?
quote:Please demonstrate how right wing the Bible is, then, in terms of economics.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:But not necessarily left wing.
Originally posted by Jade Constable
Christianity is inherently political
quote:What does 'more fair' mean? My worry is that 'fairness' is often a dangerous euphemism.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:That's not so easy, even with help. If you're a small-scale coffee farmer, you can't just start growing cotton next year because the coffee prices fell. The solution isn't subsidizing (I doubt that Christian Aid proposes this), it's making international trade more fair.
Anglican't: If these facts, as stated, are correct, then the obvious solution to me is for coffee farmers to get out of the coffee farming business and to something else (and they should be supported in doing so).
quote:I certainly agree with the three solutions that you've pointed out, but free trade underpins all of those solutions still. Economics underpins well, everything.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I'm no fan of agricultural subsidies and I think the tariff barriers that the EU sets up should be torn down (hopefully tearing down the EU with it, but that's a different discussion).
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Firstly, so-called free trade is not free, but heavily stacked against the poorest countries in favour of the richest - just look at agricultural subsidies in the EU and the USA and compare this with how the IMF and World Bank insist on subsidies being removed in developing countries.
I was intrigued by this section in Christian Aid's game:
quote:If these facts, as stated, are correct, then the obvious solution to me is for coffee farmers to get out of the coffee farming business and to something else (and they should be supported in doing so). Subsidising unprofitable farmers in a declining market will surely lead nowhere? (Apart from Uganda's eventual bankruptcy.)
In Uganda, the price of coffee fell from US$0.63 per lb in 1999 to US$0.25 per lb in 2001.
• Coffee accounts for more than two-thirds of Uganda’s exports, so government revenue from its sale dropped by 36 per cent.
• Global trade rules and pressure from the IMF make it hard for the Ugandan government to increase the support or protection that it gives to its coffee farmers, so many of them are going out of business.
quote:I would suggest that the reasons for the continued problems in places such as Africa is because of serious structural problems in the countries concerned. For example,
Secondly, the reason why the rich countries are rich and the poor countries are poor isn't because of differences in intelligence, had work or abundant natural resources. Putting it bluntly it is because we developed technologically before they did and went and stole most of their stuff - land, mineral rights etc etc.
- Democratic institutions are strengthening, but they aren't what they could be.
- Security of land tenure. In order to be an effective commercial farmer, one needs to know for certain that one has definite, enforceable legal rights over the land one holds. Are African economies underpinned by effective Land Registries? I imagine most are not, hence why subsistence farming will always be more attractive.
- Strong corporate institutions. How long does it take to set up a limited company (with all the advantages that brings) in the UK? Not long at all - I'm sure with a bit of effort I could start trading as Anglican't Limited by Monday morning if I wanted to. How does that compare to setting up a company in, say, Tanzania? I dread to think.
quote:I agree. What I've listed above are three, off-the-cuff but practical examples of why I think Third World economies lag behind. Campaigning on these issues would, I think, be more useful than whining about a global system of trade that has been around for centuries and isn't changing any time soon. Sadly, I can't see anything on the Christian Aid website about these very practical problems, but it's a big website with lots of detailed papers, so I'll keep looking.
You also have to address the underlying structural causes.
quote:It's hard to describe this in a few words, and I admit, even harder to put in practice.
Anglican't: What does 'more fair' mean?
quote:Technical assistance, credit lines... There are a lot of forms of support with which the government can help.
Anglican't: Christian Aid complains that the Ugandan government cannot 'increase support' to otherwise unprofitable farmers. I'm not sure how to read this other than 'subsidies'.
quote:You're ignoring the context. Who is Luke writing to and why? Luke was writing to an increasingly gentile Church for whom the centrality of Jesus was beyond doubt. It was a context in which the Church was coming under increasing persecution from the synagogue for its association with Gentiles.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Well, the Parable says very clearly:
Zach82: Can we have a little context please? I know we want to say "This Jesus business isn't really important so long as we have charity," but is that what the Gospel writers are trying to say?
The Priest and the Levite who were all pious but didn't lift a finger = bad guys
The Samaritan who doesn't have our religion but who helped = good guy
There are many ways to interpret this parable (I seem to remember we discussed it a couple of weeks ago), but independently of your interpretation it becomes very difficult to hold up "Worldly righteousness might be a very fine and praiseworthy thing, but unless it proceeds from faith it fails before God's judgment" in the light of it.
The Good Samaritan had worldly righteousness, but it didn't proceed from faith. It sais nowhere in the parable that it did; from the listeners' point of view he didn't even have the right faith. Yet, his actions didn't fail before Jesus' judgement.
quote:Yet, the Good Samaritan did a good deed that didn't arise out of faith, and Jesus recommended him for it.
Zach82: The argument is for the possibility of righteousness in non-standard-Jews
quote:Yes it does, explicitly. He took pity on him. Luke 10:33.
Zach82: The text doesn't explain the motivations of the Samaritan at all.
quote:The New Testament is fairly quiet on what government should be like, isn't it? What is to the fore are God's expectations for individuals and communities, and those expectations are of self-sacrificial generosity. I'm not sure it makes much sense to describe that as either left- or right-wing, in the usual meaning of those terms.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Please demonstrate how right wing the Bible is, then, in terms of economics.
Are not both OT law and the life of the church in the NT distinctly left wing in practice?
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I certainly agree with the three solutions that you've pointed out, but free trade underpins all of those solutions still. Economics underpins well, everything.
quote:Lots of institutions that we (or certainly I) recognise today as being 'good' had their genesis in the 16th / 17th centuries. Parliamentary democracy would be another good example. I'm not sure what age has to do with it.
Capitalism isn't that long-established in large swathes of the developing world, and where it is? Largely thanks to imperialism, that er, very godly institution. Capitalism was pretty much kickstarted in Europe by the Dutch in the 16th Century
quote:Well no, but was he calling for subsidisation of inefficient businesses?
Do you think Isaiah was just having a whine when he talked about bringing good news to the poor?
quote:Fine. Notice how that motivation has nothing to do with "He didn't believe in God or Jesus," as would be necessary to make your interpretation hold water.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Yes it does, explicitly. He took pity on him. Luke 10:33.
Zach82: The text doesn't explain the motivations of the Samaritan at all.
quote:What South Coast Kevin said. I was cheekily going to suggest this.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Please demonstrate how right wing the Bible is, then, in terms of economics.
Are not both OT law and the life of the church in the NT distinctly left wing in practice?
quote:Your interpretation only works if you explicitly make the Samaritan a follower of God. Jesus (or Luke) would have to make this very explicit, because for the people who listened to the parable, 'Samaritan' was very much equivalent to 'unbeliever'.
Zach82: The impact of the parable is supposed to be in the man's ethnic group, and the whole premise of the Gentile Church was that not being a member of the right ethnic group is no impediment to being a follower of God. Once again, the association of "gentile" with "unbeliever" is not in the text.
quote:A 'credit line' sounds like a subsidy to me, but I accept your point. However, if the slide in the price of coffee is due to supply and demand (i.e. a massive increase in supply or a fall in demand or both) and not through some other factors, then the coffee growers only choice is to either make themselves profitable at the newer, lower market rate or to diversify. If the slide in price is as bad as Christian Aid makes out, then being profitable at the lower rate might be impossible (or at least very difficult) and so diversification might be the only solution.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Technical assistance, credit lines... There are a lot of forms of support with which the government can help.
Anglican't: Christian Aid complains that the Ugandan government cannot 'increase support' to otherwise unprofitable farmers. I'm not sure how to read this other than 'subsidies'.
quote:Why would Luke make explicit what was taken for granted by his audience?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Your interpretation only works if you explicitly make the Samaritan a follower of God. Jesus (or Luke) would have to make this very explicit, because for the people who listened to the parable, 'Samaritan' was very much equivalent to 'unbeliever'.
Zach82: The impact of the parable is supposed to be in the man's ethnic group, and the whole premise of the Gentile Church was that not being a member of the right ethnic group is no impediment to being a follower of God. Once again, the association of "gentile" with "unbeliever" is not in the text.
quote:No, it isn't. The most important difference is that credit needs to be paid back, and with interest. Of course, in the long run credit lines are best administrated by private companies, but sometimes government intervention is needed in the beginning.
Anglican't: A 'credit line' sounds like a subsidy to me, but I accept your point.
quote:I agree that diversification is important, and I'm sure that Christian Aid is working on that. But you have to see that for a small-scale farmer, the options for diversification are limited. Sure, they can grow tea or cotton, but those products have the same price volatility. The ideal would be if Uganda could compete with Western countries on other products and services. But they are late to the race.
Anglican't: If the slide in price is as bad as Christian Aid makes out, then being profitable at the lower rate might be impossible (or at least very difficult) and so diversification might be the only solution.
quote:I'm not very familiar with Christian Aid's position on OPEC.
Anglican't: It's also just occurred to me that the Christian Aid game made positive noises about OPEC. Isn't it likely that Third World countries suffer as a result of higher oil prices caused by the OPEC cartel?
quote:Wow Anglican't, that's fantastic. I wonder what my staunch Labour-voting parents would think of me, saying such things about a Margaret Thatcher speech... I especially liked this part:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I was cheekily going to suggest this.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Please demonstrate how right wing the Bible is, then, in terms of economics.
Are not both OT law and the life of the church in the NT distinctly left wing in practice?
quote:
What is certain, however, is that any set of social and economic arrangements which is not founded on the acceptance of individual responsibility will do nothing but harm.
We are all responsible for our own actions. We can't blame society if we disobey the law. We simply can't delegate the exercise of mercy and generosity to others. The politicians and other secular powers should strive by their measures to bring out the good in people and to fight down the bad: but they can't create the one or abolish the other. They can only see that the laws encourage the best instincts and convictions of the people, instincts and convictions which I'm convinced are far more deeply rooted than is often supposed.
quote:No, I'm not. You are making the Samaritan a believer, I'm going along with the text. I'm actually quite amazed how you can make a parable say exactly the opposite of what the text says.
Zach82: We are both filling in some blanks here
quote:I really hope you complained to Christian Aid about it. It will only stop happening if enough people complain and withdraw their support because of methods like these.
Originally posted by Kitten:
I donated to Christian Aid by text last year and was disappointed to find afterwards that they use telesales operatives to hassle people who donate in this way. I received several calls, despite me saying, 'please to not call me again'. I use this method to donate to other charities and none of them have subjected me to unwanted calls asking for more money.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:Understood - point taken.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:No, it isn't. The most important difference is that credit needs to be paid back, and with interest. Of course, in the long run credit lines are best administrated by private companies, but sometimes government intervention is needed in the beginning.
Anglican't: A 'credit line' sounds like a subsidy to me, but I accept your point.
quote:They are, but it seems to me that simple things like secure democratic institutions, security of land tenure, good roads, and the ability to form corporations are the building blocks required to get a country like Uganda into the race and winning in it. And yet major aid charities appear to be silent on these issues.
The ideal would be if Uganda could compete with Western countries on other products and services. But they are late to the race.
quote:In one of the suggested trading situations in the game, the guidance says:
quote:I'm not very familiar with Christian Aid's position on OPEC.
Anglican't: It's also just occurred to me that the Christian Aid game made positive noises about OPEC. Isn't it likely that Third World countries suffer as a result of higher oil prices caused by the OPEC cartel?
quote:Seems like an endorsement to me. I'm not sure what affect OPEC has on some of the people they feature on their donation envelopes, but I can't imagine it's positive. I'd be interested to know.
7. Producer cartels and trade embargoes
The groups with the most paper might decide to join together to protect themselves from being individually exploited by Grade A countries. If these groups withhold supplies of paper, they may be able to improve the terms of trade for themselves and conserve stocks for the future.
Parallels in the real world: the most famous agreement of this kind was when oil-exporting countries banded together
to form the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
However, this is a rare example of success. In reality
it is very difficult for countries to operate a trade embargo or cartel, particularly if they are relatively poor or less powerful.
quote:I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to correct you here. If you look deeper into organizations like Christian Aid, you'll see that the bulk of their work is exactly about securing democratic institutions, security of land tenure and the ability to form corporations. Google any of these terms in combination with 'Christian Aid' and you'll find tons of examples. Maybe they talk a bit less about roads, but that's mostly because this is a bit outside of their scope.
Anglican't: They are, but it seems to me that simple things like secure democratic institutions, security of land tenure, good roads, and the ability to form corporations are the building blocks required to get a country like Uganda into the race and winning in it. And yet major aid charities appear to be silent on these issues.
quote:I am not saying the Samaritan is being praised for doing the right thing despite not believing. This is quite clearly not a parable about the righteousness of faith any more than it is a parable about righteousness apart from faith, as you are saying.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:No, I'm not. You are making the Samaritan a believer, I'm going along with the text. I'm actually quite amazed how you can make a parable say exactly the opposite of what the text says.
Zach82: We are both filling in some blanks here
Suppose that I'm going to tell a joke that starts with "A priest, a rabbi and an imam enter a bar..." When telling this joke, I'm entering a sort of unwritten agreement with my audience: I'm talking about an archetypical priest, rabbi and imam. If this imam actually belongs to a very liberal current that has no problem with alcohol, then I should make this explicit at the beginning of my joke.
When Jesus starts telling a parable involving a Priest, a Levite and a Samaritan, the unwritten agreement is clear: the first two are the 'right' followers of religion, the third is not. As with a joke, the parables hinges on an unexpected turn-around: the religious guys did the wrong thing, and the unbeliever is praised for his actions.
quote:I did a few house to house collections for Christian Aid many years ago. I'd guess that at my former church the collections were stopped simply because most of the other participcants were getting too old. I don't remember any whole-church discussion about this, but suddenly people were expected to collect money from their family and friends instead.
Originally posted by shamwari:
Christian Aid week starts on Sunday ( in the UK).
I wonder what Shipmates think.
I am not happy about the Title. Are not other Aid Agencies to be regarded as "Christian" in what they do even if they dissociate themselves from any religious affiliation? What is distinctively different about "Christian Aid"?
In years gone by house to house collections were the norm for raising funds. I know of many churches that have abandoned this practice this year - for all manner of reasons. What is this saying to us?
At least Christian Aid is an NGO. And I would urge that all Aid money is channelled through NGOs rather than Govt > Govt. The corruption aided by Govt > Govt aid deals is beyond calculation.
quote:I'm hoping that we'll be able to get a confirmation from the Kerygmaniacs on the Ship, but I maintain that for the people that Jesus was telling the parable to, 'Samaritan' didn't have a strong meaning of 'someone from another ethnicity' but instead very much one of 'not the right kind of believer'.
Zach82: I am looking at context, which doesn't sustain your assertion "Samaritans=unbelievers."
quote:They certainly weren't "the right kind of believer," but that doesn't mean you can go right to "therefore Luke is trying to say that belief isn't important."
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I'm hoping that we'll be able to get a confirmation from the Kerygmaniacs on the Ship, but I maintain that for the people that Jesus was telling the parable to, 'Samaritan' didn't have a strong meaning of 'someone from another ethnicity' but instead very much one of 'not the right kind of believer'.
Zach82: I am looking at context, which doesn't sustain your assertion "Samaritans=unbelievers."
quote:That isn't what I am saying.
Zach82: They certainly weren't "the right kind of believer," but that doesn't mean you can go right to "therefore Luke is trying to say that belief isn't important."
quote:If government is providing credit where a commercial lender wouldn't, at an interest rate that a commerical lender wouldn't (because the rate doesn't accurately reflect the risk of default) then that's a subsidy. Generally-speaking, it's a pretty good subsidy, but it's a subsidy still.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:No, it isn't. The most important difference is that credit needs to be paid back, and with interest. Of course, in the long run credit lines are best administrated by private companies, but sometimes government intervention is needed in the beginning.
Anglican't: A 'credit line' sounds like a subsidy to me, but I accept your point.
quote:By all means fill me in, because it sure looks like you are trying to get the text to say "Belief isn't important so long as we have charity."
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:That isn't what I am saying.
Zach82: They certainly weren't "the right kind of believer," but that doesn't mean you can go right to "therefore Luke is trying to say that belief isn't important."
quote:I have worked in rural Mozambique, in areas where population density is low. Normally, commercial lenders aren't interested in entering here, because they aren't convinced that it will be economically viable.
Leorning Cniht: If government is providing credit where a commercial lender wouldn't, at an interest rate that a commerical lender wouldn't (because the rate doesn't accurately reflect the risk of default) then that's a subsidy. Generally-speaking, it's a pretty good subsidy, but it's a subsidy still.
quote:No, I just disagree with your claim "Worldly righteousness might be a very fine and praiseworthy thing, but unless it proceeds from faith it fails before God's judgment". The parable of the Good Samaritan disagrees with that claim. But there is no need to go to the other extreme "Belief isn't important so long as we have charity."
Zach82: By all means fill me in, because it sure looks like you are trying to get the text to say "Belief isn't important so long as we have charity."
quote:Tp be honest, when I did some work together with Christian Aid, I never asked them about their religion. I don't think that you have to be Christian to apply for Christian Aid, I guess maybe there would only a general requirement that you have a "respectful attitude towards the Christian faith" or something like that. But I could be wrong.
Rosa Winkel: I've had a few dealings with Christian Aid workers. I didn't know any non-Christians working there.
quote:(My emphasis)
Christian Aid's diversity and inclusion policy:
It is Christian Aid’s policy to respect the diversity of all employees, prospective employees, volunteers, partners, beneficiaries, contractors and suppliers and treat them fairly and equally regardless of characteristics such as gender, sexual orientation, family status, race, caste, culture, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religious belief, age, physical or mental ability, educational background, working patterns, responsibility for dependants, union membership, political affiliation. This policy applies to recruitment and selection [...]
quote:You may not be arguing that, but you need the passage to say that to make your point. Specifically, you need Samaritan to mean "unbeliever," and nothing you've said draws that interpretation out.
No, I just disagree with your claim "Worldly righteousness might be a very fine and praiseworthy thing, but unless it proceeds from faith it fails before God's judgment". The parable of the Good Samaritan disagrees with that claim. But there is no need to go to the other extreme "Belief isn't important so long as we have charity."
If I would paraphrase this parable, it would be something like "Faith is important, but if you're only going to be pious as a way to show off without lifting a finger, then it would be better to be an unbeliever who at least does something." This would be consistent with other things I read about Jesus in the Gospels.
quote:That's about the perfect use of a government subsidy (assuming I understood you that the government provided initial funds to back the credit unions). Subsidy is not an inherently bad word - as a temporary measure in order to get things going, subsidies can be fine. Permanent, structural subsidies (hello, CAP) are more problematic.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The credit unions started to thrive. They started with micro loans, but as time progressed people started to take loans of € 10,000 or more, with payback rates above 97%.
Needless to say, commercial lenders started to get interested. Now, they are firming contracts with these credit unions to become their back lenders.
quote:Yes, it does. We already agreed that for the people Jesus was telling this parable to, 'Samaritan' means 'someone who doesn't have the right faith. It also is the logical thing when you contrast a Samaritan with a Priest and a Levite.
Zach82: You may not be arguing that, but you need the passage to say that to make your point. Specifically, you need Samaritan to mean "unbeliever," and nothing you've said draws that interpretation out.
quote:I do not see that the context of Luke speaking to the Gentiles changes anything.
Zach82: You keep paraphrasing and elaborating on the passage without even daring to look at its context.
quote:My system is doing fine, thank you
Zach82: Your theology might very well be true, but if you have nothing else to shore it up with, your system is in trouble.
But I'm not trying to prove that my interpretation of this parable is true. I'm only saying that you have to do a lot of eisegesis and unlogical twists for your interpretation of it to work. quote:Thank you. In fact, the government didn't back the credit unions in building up their capital. The initial capital of these unions came entirely from the people themselves. Poor people, who sometimes invested amounts as low as € 2, but when you add it all together it becomes a seed that the union can grow on. Only later, when the union members grew financially outside capital was needed (and acquired against market rates).
Leorning Cniht: That's about the perfect use of a government subsidy (assuming I understood you that the government provided initial funds to back the credit unions).
quote:I agree (at least when we are talking about credit).
Leorning Cniht: Subsidy is not an inherently bad word - as a temporary measure in order to get things going, subsidies can be fine. Permanent, structural subsidies (hello, CAP) are more problematic.
quote:That Luke is arguing that charity makes for a truer belief is beyond doubt. That Luke is saying charity is perfectly fine without belief is very much in doubt.
Yes, it does. We already agreed that for the people Jesus was telling this parable to, 'Samaritan' means 'someone who doesn't have the right faith. It also is the logical thing when you contrast a Samaritan with a Priest and a Levite... I do not see that the context of Luke speaking to the Gentiles changes anything.
quote:How could you be saying that? You cited the passage, if you'll recall, to support your own system. And if your interpretation fails to obtain, then your system is left unsupported.
My system is doing fine, thank you [Biased] But I'm not trying to prove that my interpretation of this parable is true. I'm only saying that you have to do a lot of eisegesis and unlogical twists for your interpretation of it to work.
quote:'Perfectly fine' is taking it a bit far, but Luke does show us someone who didn't have the right kind of belief, but who was praised by Jesus for his actions.
Zach82: That Luke is saying charity is perfectly fine without belief is very much in doubt.
quote:No, I only quoted it to discredit yours.
Zach82: You cited the passage, if you'll recall, to support your own system.
quote:If I understand your interpretation well, it goes more or less like this:
Zach82: I'd like to know what eisegesis and twists of logic you imagine I've had to work up, since I've said very little about how I interpret the passage in my own system.
quote:You read as much into my arguments without any basis as you read into that passage.
At this moment I have four versions of this text open in my browser in different languages, I have tried to tilt my head sideways and squint my eyes a bit, but I can't read your version from it.
quote:No, it doesn't make sense. An Expert in the Law wouldn't take a Samaritan's belief for granted.
Zach82: All I have to say is "Luke isn't saying anything about belief at all- he's taking belief for granted" and I'm golden.
quote:No doubt, but it's the audience of the parable (Luke's community) that would take belief for granted. What is Luke trying to tell them with the story? To answer that we have to look at who made up that community and the events around them. For example, when Luke wrote about priests and Levites, the Temple had just been destroyed, and the entire priestly system had been wiped away. Why, then, is he talking about them?
No, it doesn't make sense. An Expert in the Law wouldn't take a Samaritan's belief for granted.
quote:WTF?? Luke's community would have less reason to take anyone's belief for granted. In their minds, someone is only the 'right' believer when he's baptized. From their point of view, they are surrounded by unbelievers.
Zach82: No doubt, but it's the audience of the parable (Luke's community) that would take belief for granted.
quote:Supposedly because Jesus talked about them.
Zach82: Why, then, is he talking about them?
quote:Jesus twists the question around in a number of ways in this parable. This includes the introduction of an unbeliever who is praised for his actions.
Zach82: Keep in mind, the question is "Who is my neighbor?" not "Can unbelievers be righteous?"
quote:which for all the world sounds like a true, but flagrant, in-your-face waving of a Party Banner.
Worldly righteousness might be a very fine and praiseworthy thing, but unless it proceeds from faith it fails before God's judgment.
quote:I know that, and I agree with your opinion on the parable. The way the Parable of the Good Samaritan is related in Luke is quite complex, Jesus twists and turns the question around a number of times. The lawyer asked "Who is my neighbour who I need to help?" but Jesus' answer comes down to "The important thing is for you to be a neighbour."
The Silent Acolyte: Rather, it's a Lawyer Joke: "And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test" & "But he, desiring to justify himself."
quote:Well, before pointing out the mote in my eye...
Step 1: Project your theology on the first Christians.
Step 2: Assume that this theology is in the Bible, because the first Christians would have read it this way.
Step 3: Voilá! The Bible supports your theology.
quote:There isn't one in mine, but thank you anyway. Trying to find out what associations a First Century expert of the Law would have upon hearing the word 'Samaritan' isn't projecting my theology on the first Christians.
Zach82: Well, before pointing out the mote in my eye...
quote:What do you mean by "reform of the private rental sector" then? There were "reforms" by the last government which consisted entirely on placing mandatory and expensive conditions on landlords whilst doing absolutely nothing to tackle obvious abuses by tenants.
posted by Jade Constable
Er, no? I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything. I mentioned tougher penalties for animal cruelty and reform of the private rental sector (not any specific reform). What has that got to do with tenants breaking the rules of their lease and leaving a mess, and no doubt causing animal suffering by having unfit conditions for them to live in?
quote:Dude, not only did Luke's Christians presume the centrality of faith, the passage itself presumes it. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart..."
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:There isn't one in mine, but thank you anyway. Trying to find out what associations a First Century expert of the Law would have upon hearing the word 'Samaritan' isn't projecting my theology on the first Christians.
Zach82: Well, before pointing out the mote in my eye...
I continue to be amazed on how a parable can be made to say exactly the opposite of what it actually says.
quote:Is this a sorry attempt to troll me or something? All I did was cite the passage itself there.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
At least I've learned something about how a parable can be twisted around. That was quite interesting.
quote:But surely all those abuses you list are already offences, either as criminal damage to someone else's property or as a breach of the tenancy agreement which you presumably drew up? I'm not sure what further legislation you see as necessary.
Originally posted by L'organist:
What do you mean by "reform of the private rental sector" then? There were "reforms" by the last government which consisted entirely on placing mandatory and expensive conditions on landlords whilst doing absolutely nothing to tackle obvious abuses by tenants.
quote:No, it's genuine. I know that people interpret the Bible in different ways, and I realize that the Parable of the Good Samaritan as related in Luke is complex.
Zach82: Is this a sorry attempt to troll me or something?
quote:I have a direct debit and have told them if they ever send me begging letters or phone calls I shall cancel it.
Originally posted by Kitten:
I donated to Christian Aid by text last year and was disappointed to find afterwards that they use telesales operatives to hassle people who donate in this way. I received several calls, despite me saying, 'please to not call me again'. I use this method to donate to other charities and none of them have subjected me to unwanted calls asking for more money.
quote:'Fraid I can't see much scriptural evidence for a centrally planned economy.
Originally posted by Jade Constable
Are not both OT law and the life of the church in the NT distinctly left wing in practice?
quote:You genuinely believe simply quoting the passage is "twisting the passage around?"
No, it's genuine.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:I was talking about your interpretation of the parable as a whole.
Zach82: You genuinely believe simply quoting the passage is "twisting the passage around?"
quote:If the Roman Empire wasn't centrally planned then what was it?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:'Fraid I can't see much scriptural evidence for a centrally planned economy.
Originally posted by Jade Constable
Are not both OT law and the life of the church in the NT distinctly left wing in practice?
And I suppose "the carpenter" in his pre-ministry days just gave his stuff away, and woe betide him if he dared to even think about selling a piece of furniture for (*gasp*) a profit!
And as for all those nasty landowners in the Old Testament...
quote:The ones who had to return the land to its original owners every fifty years?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And as for all those nasty landowners in the Old Testament...
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I apologise wholeheartedly for sounding as though some fault lies with the people on the end of the phone, who are of course only doing their job. I meant, and phrased it wrongly, that I do have a problem with organisations - particularly charities - who use these techniques. They cost money and I am unconvinced it's the best use of people's donations and it risks losing the goodwill of potential supporters. YMMV.
quote:Hang on, are you implying God approved of the economic set-up of the Roman Empire? (Setting aside whether or not it was, in fact, centrally planned.) I fear I've misunderstood, but if I haven't, could you explain for me why you think God approved of the Roman economic system?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:If the Roman Empire wasn't centrally planned then what was it?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:'Fraid I can't see much scriptural evidence for a centrally planned economy.
Originally posted by Jade Constable
Are not both OT law and the life of the church in the NT distinctly left wing in practice?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:I can't see much scriptural evidence for public limited companies.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
'Fraid I can't see much scriptural evidence for a centrally planned economy.
quote:Let's start with what is definitely not in the text. None of the sheep are commended for keeping their Christian identity by not co-operating with non-Christian charities. None of the goats are let off because they avoided implying the existence of righteousness apart from Jesus.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:The sheep explicitly did not know that feeding the poor was feeding Jesus. That they were unfamiliar with Jesus is simply not in the text. In both of the other parables in the discourse the distinction is clearly between prepared and ill-prepared disciples, and it's only natural to assume the last one is too.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What's more the sheep explicitly do not realise that they were concerned with Jesus: they thought they were just feeding the hungry, etc.
Your interpretation would mean the author is trying to say that this Jesus business doesn't matter so long as we have charity, which just seems incredibly unlikely, given this is a Gospel of the Lord we are talking about.
quote:Well, that's precisely what Christian aid does - it's the backbone of the movement. What's your problem?
Originally posted by shamwari:
I had my say on Christian Aid this morning, arguing that we should be responsible in the kind of Aid we give; i.e. give aid which makes people less dependent rather than more dependent.
quote:Notice how I ain't never said we are obliged to not cooperate with non-Christian charities. Notice how I explicitly denied that.
Let's start with what is definitely not in the text. None of the sheep are commended for keeping their Christian identity by not co-operating with non-Christian charities...
quote:You tell me.
Originally posted by ken
As for all those nasty landowners in the OT, what did Amos and Isaiah have to say to them?
quote:Again, AFAICS land in the Old Testament belongs in perpetuity to clans and tribes, not to individuals. Although the land may be temporarily sold to outsiders, at the Year of Jubilee it is supposed to revert to the original family.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It would seem that the private ownership of property is rather biblical. Doesn't seem particularly 'left wing' to me!
quote:Well, I'm not pulling your leg.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was pulling South Coast Kevin's leg, so that wasn't intended as a Hell-call either.
Mostly I want to give South Coast Kevin a pat on the head, 50p to go down the shop and buy some sweeties or a Bob a Job (do they still have that in the Cubs?) rather than a smacked bottom.
quote:Ok. Thank you.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sorry to double-post ...
@Nenya, I quite agree and whilst I'm generally - but not always - very polite to cold-callers (because I've done it myself and know what it's like), I did come close to getting very cross with Christian Aid's telesales people.
I told them I'd been made redundant and couldn't commit to increasing my support - I have a regular, small direct-debit, but they kept on. Even when I pointed out how galling I found it when I'd already given 'no' for an answer they still kept on. I should have complained. It stopped just that teeny-bit short of making me want to cancel my monthly donation.
So, yes, I agree with your point and apologise if I snapped at you.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It does sadden me that any charity would put you, or anyone in that situation, under that kind of pressure.
quote:
Anglican't: ...t it seems to me that simple things like secure democratic institutions, security of land tenure, good roads, and the ability to form corporations are the building blocks required to get a country like Uganda into the race and winning in it. And yet major aid charities appear to be silent on these issues.
quote:Good for them then! The whole manufactured scare about housing benefit abuse is simply a deliberate distraction from the real problems we have with housing and land in this country. Shelter should stick to their guns.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Shelter, a charity which you quoted, is only concerned with fighting the corner of tenants: they are absolutely not interested when confronted with abuse by people who rent. Shelter have been asked repeatedly for help in trying to curb the widespread abuse of HB - they won't even include in their literature that it is a legal duty of a Housing Benefit recipient to pay the money they are given to cover rent to their landlord: they are condoning fraud.
quote:I was actually talking about HB abuse by TENANTS - as in getting the HB and not using it to pay their rent.
posted by Albertus
Actually, Shelter... They have a very clearly defined remit and dealing with HB abuse by landlords is not, and never has been, part of it.
quote:No, I don't think so. My preference is that charities like Christian Aid avoid politics. But having decided not to do that they have - in my view - chosen completely the wrong political targets to criticise. I don't think that's contradictory.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Anglican't: ...t it seems to me that simple things like secure democratic institutions, security of land tenure, good roads, and the ability to form corporations are the building blocks required to get a country like Uganda into the race and winning in it. And yet major aid charities appear to be silent on these issues.
In other words, politics! Now you are sayingn that aid charities should get invovled in politics. You contradict your own previous opinion!
