homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » The social-progressive mindset (Page 9)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  21  22  23 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The social-progressive mindset
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm sorry if I've bored you with this before; but I'm convinced there are two gospels.

One for the poor, the dispossessed, the helpless, the weak, the oppressed. That's the gospel of unconditional love and acceptance and welcome.

There's another for the self-righteous, the religious, the wealthy, the self-satisfied, the ones looking for exceptions in the gospels. That's the gospel of "give all your stuff away, stop being such a total shit".

There is a tendency amongst many to think that the gospel of acceptance applies to everyone and that somehow those who already have a whole lot of stuff in this life are due some kind of extra benefit from the deity.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

If your neighbourhood has "general principles" of a minimum wage, hours of work, or health and safety, do those apply outside your neighbourhood?

I take it you mean something like "Am I, in Caprica City, necessarily being exploited if I'm working for longer hours at a lower rate of pay at a higher risk of accident than the norms which apply in rural Ireland ?"

And my answer is No. Your community has no obligation to abide by my community's standards, and vice versa.


I disagree.

"...too often one sees: “Are you looking for work? Come, come to this company”. Eleven hours, 10 hours of work, 600 Euros. “Do you like it? No? Go home”. What is to be done in a world that functions like this? Because there is a line, a file of people looking for work: if you do not like it, the next one will. It is hunger, hunger makes us accept what they give us"

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm sorry if I've bored you with this before; but I'm convinced there are two gospels.

One for the poor, the dispossessed, the helpless, the weak, the oppressed. That's the gospel of unconditional love and acceptance and welcome.

There's another for the self-righteous, the religious, the wealthy, the self-satisfied, the ones looking for exceptions in the gospels. That's the gospel of "give all your stuff away, stop being such a total shit".

Blogger Fred Clark examined this recently.

quote:
Because here’s the thing we evangelical types aren’t allowed or accustomed to notice: Most of the time in the actual Bible, the poor are already saved. All of them. They just are.

That’s a given. It’s rarely stated outright because, throughout the actual Bible, it goes without saying. It is simply assumed — over and over again. The starkest example of this might be Jesus’ parable of the rich man (sometimes called “Dives”) and the beggar Lazarus. How and why is Lazarus “saved” in that story? He just is. Salvation belongs to him because nothing else does. The only drama in that story involves Dives and his wealthy relatives. Can they be saved, too? Yes — because they need to be. No such need is attributed to Lazarus.

But surely Lazarus — like all people — is a sinner. And surely that means he needs to be saved from his sins? Probably so. But if his Jubilee and salvation also involves the forgiveness of his sins, then it doesn’t occur in that story due to his confession and repentance. It is granted to him and attributed to him because he is a beggar. That’s how Jubilee works. It makes demands from creditors and extends grace to debtors — whether or not they seek it or even know it.

Or consider the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, in which the nations and the people of the nations are judged based on how they respond to the hungry, the naked, the sick and the imprisoned. Some of these folks are “saved” and some are not, but there’s a whole other category unaddressed in this judgment — the hungry, naked, sick and imprisoned themselves. They seem exempt from the summons to stand before the throne. There’s no sense questioning whether they meet the standard of this judgment because they are the standard. Their “salvation” is never in question. The only question is who from among the rest of us will be joining them. (And the answer, in that parable, is those who have already joined them.)

Italics from the original, bolding added by me. At any rate, while it may be theologically convenient to claim Jesus made no distinction between the rich and the poor, the Biblical account does not support this assertion.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think God has a preferential option for the poor and doesn't really give much of a shit about the rich

Good answer. You've summed up the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity. Bias to the poor. Bias to the ethnic minority. Bias to the pervert (ie. the person with minority sexual desires).

Is this really what Christianity is about ?

Taking the Bible as a whole ? (if you're Protestant, or the equivalent test for Catholic and Orthodox) ?

And if it's a slanted interpretation, a view that takes one theme, one strand of the tapestry, and upholds it against the whole, then isn't there a word for that ?

Heresy ?

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think God has a preferential option for the poor and doesn't really give much of a shit about the rich

Good answer. You've summed up the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity. Bias to the poor. Bias to the ethnic minority. Bias to the pervert (ie. the person with minority sexual desires).
How the hell did you get anything about perversity from what cheesy wrote? Let's not put words in other people's mouths if we can avoid it. That, at least, is NOT what Christianity is all about.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And if it's a slanted interpretation, a view that takes one theme, one strand of the tapestry, and upholds it against the whole, then isn't there a word for that ?

Heresy ?

Nope. That isn't what the word heresy has ever been taken to mean.

Seriously? You've decided to double-down on this, and decide that Christians who think differently from you are heretics? I didn't take you for a fundamentalist, but that's pretty much the road you're now heading down: anyone who doesn't read the Bible exactly like I do is a heretic.

Your heaven is going to be very nice and comfortable for you I'm sure, seeing as how it is going to be absolutely chock full of people who think exactly like you, but my goodness it's going to be dull.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And if it's a slanted interpretation, a view that takes one theme, one strand of the tapestry, and upholds it against the whole, then isn't there a word for that ?

Heresy ?

Nope. That isn't what the word heresy has ever been taken to mean.
So what word would you use ?

I'm not turning fundamentalist.

I just find it strange that Christianity could be twisted in this way.

If indeed you agree that s-p is a form of Christianity as others seem to be suggesting.

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So what word would you use ?


I'd call the phrase “preferential option for the poor” Catholic social teaching - given that it originated from the Jesuit Father Pedro Arrupe, and was picked and developed up by most (if not all) Popes over the last 30 years. If you want to argue that this is wrong, then you're arguing with them not me.

If you don't like the expanded view that I've expressed, that's fine. I don't really care what you think is heretical.

Fwiw, I think that this is the purest expression of the mission of Jesus and the clearest motto for Christianity. I am not a Roman Catholic for various reasons, however I believe they're 100% correct on all their social teaching on the poor.

Again, not only don't I care if you don't like it you're arguing with them not just me.

But I do care that you're attempting to close down discussion here other than within the narrow confines of the thing that you want to discuss.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Good answer. You've summed up the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity. Bias to the poor. Bias to the ethnic minority. Bias to the pervert (ie. the person with minority sexual desires).

Is this really what Christianity is about ?
...

Can we presume, then, you would prefer Christianity to dehumanize and enslave people of other races, accumulate as much wealth as possible, and murder people who don't do sex properly?

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Can we presume, then, you would prefer Christianity to dehumanize and enslave people of other races, accumulate as much wealth as possible, and murder people who don't do sex properly?

No. You can presume that I think bias is a bad thing. That there's some connection between justice and impartiality.

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The world is full of bias and injustice. How should Christians respond? By not taking sides? By supporting both sides equally? By ignoring how many times the poor - and people with illnesses and disabilities, tax collectors, prisoners and captives, sex workers, and all manner of lowly folk - are mentioned in the Gospels?

I suppose it is possible to interpret "the poor will always be with you" as a Christian acceptance of poverty being just the way things are, ho-hum, and not Jesus' call to eliminate it. I don't know if that's heretical, but it does seem to go against the recurrent theme in the Bible of the lowly being raised up and the mighty cast down. Oh, wait a sec ... that seems really biased, doesn't it?

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You can presume that I think bias is a bad thing. That there's some connection between justice and impartiality.

Some connection. Not an indefeasible connection. For example Blackstone's ratio says that the justice system should be biased in favour of the accused party.

Also, it seems to me that although you sympathise with Goliath over David you will impartially and without bias ban them both from using slings.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Can we presume, then, you would prefer Christianity to dehumanize and enslave people of other races, accumulate as much wealth as possible, and murder people who don't do sex properly?

No. You can presume that I think bias is a bad thing. That there's some connection between justice and impartiality.
Your views on formal equality have been extensively canvassed. We spent months discussing them in Dead Horses. You convinced no-one, largely because a rigid adherence to formal equality completely ignores outcomes.

I've already referred you to the parable of the workers in the vineyard. I'll refer you to it again. And to the parable of the Prodigal Son. Again. And of the lost coin, and the lost sheep.

I really do not think you can read those stories and believe that Jesus was a big fan of impartiality of the kind you seem to advocate.

[ 19. November 2017, 03:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Plus the Old Testament is chock full of God playing favourites. Choosing one son over another, one nation over another.

And time and again God's choice was to go for the weaker or the unruly or the one that did not fit with human conceptions of who was deserving.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
a rigid adherence to formal equality completely ignores outcomes.

I've already referred you to the parable of the workers in the vineyard. I'll refer you to it again. And to the parable of the Prodigal Son. Again. And of the lost coin, and the lost sheep.

I really do not think you can read those stories and believe that Jesus was a big fan of impartiality of the kind you seem to advocate.

In Mark chapter 2, Jesus likens himself to a doctor. Nobody thinks that a doctor is morally obliged to devote equal attention to the healthy and the sick. That is not what impartiality means.

The point of the parable of the workers in the vineyard is that in being generous to the latecomers the owner is not being unfair to those who have worked all day. He is entitled to be generous, even capricious, with his own money.

There is nothing there that justifies taking any money away from those who have laboured all day.

The good outcome that we want - the healing of the sick, the return of the lost sheep - is to be accomplished through the extra resources of God, not by loading the dice against the rest of the flock.

Jesus does not say what you would have him say.

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Jesus does not say what you would have him say.

My main point is that he doesn't say what YOU would have him say. Certainly not to the point where you are justified in describing the views of other Christians as heresy.

[ 19. November 2017, 09:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
it seems to me that although you sympathise with Goliath over David you will impartially and without bias ban them both from using slings.

No. Changing the rules to benefit those you sympathize with (and disbenefit those you don't) is the way of bias. That's the approach I'm arguing against.

It's the s-p people who would be passing laws to make Goliath fight with one arm tied behind his back. Because they look at his material advantages - muscles, armour, big expensive sword...

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But treating everybody equally is not equality, it frequently puts barriers in their way. A qualified lawyer in a wheelchair treated equally cannot get to the second floor office with no lift for an interview, so they have been prevented from getting that job, however good they are at law. To give that lawyer an equal chance would mean holding the interviews somewhere accessible to a wheelchair, for example an office with a lift or on the ground floor.

This would apply to someone temporarily in a wheelchair recovering from surgery or an accident. It also means such a legal firm is also disbarring any disabled clients from using them, so is poor commercial sense, because people tend to become more disabled with age.

It's easy to find examples to demonstrate that equality is not treating people exactly the same as people come from different places.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Absolutely CK. Any one of us could end up needing positive discrimination in our workplaces and elsewhere.

‘Reasonable adjustments’ mean just that.

Adjustments have to be made if it’s reasonable to do so. The Equality Act says there's a duty to make reasonable adjustments if you’re placed at a substantial disadvantage because of your disability compared to non-disabled people or people who don't share your disability. Substantial means more than minor or trivial.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Changing the rules to benefit those you sympathize with (and disbenefit those you don't) is the way of bias. That's the approach I'm arguing against.

You see any attempt to raise up the poor and disadvantaged to the same level as you as disbenefiting yourself.

When you're used to being able to push your way to the very front of the queue, being made to wait in line seems like a huge imposition, right?

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
it seems to me that although you sympathise with Goliath over David you will impartially and without bias ban them both from using slings.

No. Changing the rules to benefit those you sympathize with (and disbenefit those you don't) is the way of bias. That's the approach I'm arguing against.
No, it isn't. It's your attempt to characterise the position that you're arguing against.

You would of course say that your approach isn't biased to disbenefit those whom you don't sympathise with, wouldn't you.

You repeatedly refuse to accept that social-progressives do not see themselves as wanting to change the rules solely on the basis of whom they sympathise and don't sympathise with. But you want us to accept the reverse?

That's a clear sign of bias in itself.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Can we presume, then, you would prefer Christianity to dehumanize and enslave people of other races, accumulate as much wealth as possible, and murder people who don't do sex properly?

No. You can presume that I think bias is a bad thing. That there's some connection between justice and impartiality.
You seem to have mis-interpreted Russ' position, Soror Magna. He doesn't prefer racism, slavery, greed, and lynching. He has simply has no objection to (or approval of) such things, and believes that the real injustice is having an opinion one way or the other about whether such practices are just.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
In Mark chapter 2, Jesus likens himself to a doctor. Nobody thinks that a doctor is morally obliged to devote equal attention to the healthy and the sick. That is not what impartiality means.

One person on this thread actually takes the position that a doctor devoting an unequal amount of time to the sick over the healthy is guilty of a pro-sick bias, and that such a bias is something to be avoided. I've quoted him above. Maybe you should address your objections to him.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
No. Changing the rules to benefit those you sympathize with (and disbenefit those you don't) is the way of bias. That's the approach I'm arguing against.

God sympathises with the poor - because nobody else does. If you don't like that idea, you don't like God. As simple as.

quote:
It's the s-p people who would be passing laws to make Goliath fight with one arm tied behind his back. Because they look at his material advantages - muscles, armour, big expensive sword...
Riiiight. So somehow you think that God is "for" those who are naturally are brainier, have better life prospects, won in the genetic lottery of life, were born in the right country, the right century, the right social class. And that somehow he's going to look at some poor, bedraggled refugee who left his war-torn country, travelled across half the world in the back of a lorry, ended up in a camp where nobody loved him and so eventually took his own life because it was all frankly a pile of shite and had no hope of any improvement.

He's going to look at that poor, poor person and then he's going to look at some fat, wealthy, educated, middle-aged, wealthy, small business owner.

And he's going to say to the latter "oh hello friend, good job. You turned up to church on average twice on a Sunday. You tithed all you had. You believed all the right stuff. You zealously defended me on daytime television.

Well done good and faithful servant. Come in and enjoy all the things I've prepared for you"

And he's going to look at that poor refugee and say

"Go fuck yourself, you pathetic little shit. You had every opportunity to do something with your life, but no. You utterly blew it. You didn't pray in the right way. You didn't believe in the right things. You didn't give me any money (look, here is my book where I've totted up your lifetime accounts with me). You really didn't make anything with you life. And now you've blown it. Bugger off to the fires which will never be put out"

That sounds just like the gospel, I think you'll find. And all the people said "no, that's total crap".

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think God has a preferential option for the poor and doesn't really give much of a shit about the rich

Good answer. You've summed up the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity. Bias to the poor. Bias to the ethnic minority. Bias to the pervert (ie. the person with minority sexual desires).
How the hell did you get anything about perversity from what cheesy wrote?
The way Russ usually does, through selective semantics. By defining perversity as having "minority sexual desires" Russ is interestingly defining anyone who doesn't have premarital sex (something only a minority actually do) as "perverts". Hence according to Russ "the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity" unduly favors abstaining from sex before marriage, while opponents of "the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity" are either supportive of premarital sex or indifferent to the practice.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
....The good outcome that we want - the healing of the sick, the return of the lost sheep - is to be accomplished through the extra resources of God, not by loading the dice against the rest of the flock.

....

You seem to have forgotten that everything in our world is a resource from God. Regardless of who happens to have planted their flag or stuck their name on it temporarily.

quote:

How can I make you realize the misery of the poor? How can I make you understand that your wealth comes from their weeping?
Basil of Caesarea, 330-370 A.D.

Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours but theirs.
John Chrysostom, 347-407 AD

You are not making a gift of your possession to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his.
Ambrose of Milan, 340-397.

Instead of the tithes which the law commanded, the Lord said to divide everything we have with the poor. And he said to love not only our neighbors but also our enemies, and to be givers and sharers not only with the good but also to be liberal givers toward those who take away our possessions.
Irenaeus, 130-200 AD

Not generally considered heretics.

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The way Russ usually does, through selective semantics. By defining perversity as having "minority sexual desires" Russ is interestingly defining anyone who doesn't have premarital sex (something only a minority actually do) as "perverts". Hence according to Russ "the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity" unduly favors abstaining from sex before marriage, while opponents of "the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity" are either supportive of premarital sex or indifferent to the practice.

I really can't get my head around the above. If that's not a typo and is an accurate reflection of Russ' views then I'm afraid I've no idea what he is on about.

It is far easier to show that the bible is against wealth and "for" the poor than to show it is consistent in condemning sexual perversity.

I'm puzzled why we're even having this discussion - it seems to be as plain as the lines on my hand.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
You seem to have forgotten that everything in our world is a resource from God. Regardless of who happens to have planted their flag or stuck their name on it temporarily.

Surely everyone understands that the shepherd is leaving the 99 sheep in the parable to the mercy of wolves and other life mishaps to look for the single lost sheep.

I feel a bit like I've woken up in a parallel universe where Russ seems to be aware of the same parables that I've known all my life - and yet somehow has missed their essential message.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
...
I'm puzzled why we're even having this discussion - it seems to be as plain as the lines on my hand.

Flashbacks from The Name of the Rose ... Jesus on the Cross touching the purse at his waist ....

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose I'm just showing my ignorance. It never occurred to me that anyone could read the bible, and in particular the NT, and come away thinking anything other than "this is a God who is pro-poor and anti-powerful".

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suppose I'm just showing my ignorance. It never occurred to me that anyone could read the bible, and in particular the NT, and come away thinking anything other than "this is a God who is pro-poor and anti-powerful".

Are you not familiar with the "Prayer of Jabez" crowd?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suppose I'm just showing my ignorance. It never occurred to me that anyone could read the bible, and in particular the NT, and come away thinking anything other than "this is a God who is pro-poor and anti-powerful".

Indeed, it's one of the most consistent threads in a collection of texts where inconsistency is the rule.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Are you not familiar with the "Prayer of Jabez" crowd?

I'm not overly familiar, no. I thought that the gist of these things was that God was still on the side of the poor but that the Christian was the poor person whom the Lord loved (rather than any other poor person) and that elevation to material wealth was a reward for being the Christian. The difference between me and them is about who "the poor" are to whom God is biased.

I've never heard of a Christianity that didn't say that God was biased towards the poor.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...
Three questions:

- can we describe this mindset - its characteristics and doctrines - in language that is acceptable to both those who hold this point of view and those who oppose it ?

- is "social-progressive" an adequate name for it or is there a better one ?

- what is the connection to Christianity ? Is this a religious point of view ? ...

It partakes of some elements of Christianity - e.g. concern for the poor and outcast - and rejects others - e.g. patriarchal, property-oriented rules about sex. Can we have Mousethief coolers now?

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've never heard of a Christianity that didn't say that God was biased towards the poor.

mr cheesy, meet the Prosperity Gospel.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
mr cheesy, meet the Prosperity Gospel.

Yes. The difference I'm trying to illustrate (obv unclearly) is between believing that there is God has no bias between rich and poor and that God blesses people to make them rich.

I don't think believers in the prosperity gospel believe that those who are rich have, by definition, been blessed. Nor that there is a general love of the poor by the deity.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
from the wikipedia page:

quote:
The prosperity theology teaching of positive confession stems from its proponents' view of scripture. The Bible is seen as a faith contract between God and believers; God is understood to be faithful and just, so believers must fulfill their end of the contract to receive God's promises. This leads to a belief in positive confession, the doctrine that believers may claim whatever they desire from God, simply by speaking it. Prosperity theology teaches that the Bible has promised prosperity for believers, so positive confession means that believers are speaking in faith what God has already spoken about them. Positive confession is practiced to bring about what is already believed in; faith itself is a confession, and speaking it brings it into reality
The believer in the prosperity gospel believes that the words in the bible speaking of "the poor" are directed at them. Not that the bible somehow doesn't speak about a bias towards the poor.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As best as I can make out, there is a strand of American Christianity that is pretty sold on the idea that being poor is people's own fault and a sign of moral failure. And that such failure ought not be rewarded.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
As best as I can make out, there is a strand of American Christianity that is pretty sold on the idea that being poor is people's own fault and a sign of moral failure. And that such failure ought not be rewarded.

Often, ironically, from the same Christians that accuse wicked progressive liberals like me of not taking the Bible seriously. I can only assume they don't actually read the thing.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
As best as I can make out, there is a strand of American Christianity that is pretty sold on the idea that being poor is people's own fault and a sign of moral failure. And that such failure ought not be rewarded.

That is my understanding as well.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
social-progressives do not see themselves as wanting to change the rules solely on the basis of whom they sympathise and don't sympathise with.

That's not what I'm hearing here.

If you look back at the various pro-s-p responses, how many are saying

"You're right that bias is a bad thing but that's not what social progressivism is"

and how many are saying

"we're biased and proud of it"

??

Either you argue that you're right to bestow sympathy as you do, and right to let that sympathy determine your view. Or you argue that's not what you're doing at all. You can't use both defences at once.

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Host
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If you look back at the various pro-s-p responses, how many are saying

"You're right that bias is a bad thing but that's not what social progressivism is"

and how many are saying

"we're biased and proud of it"

??

Either you argue that you're right to bestow sympathy as you do, and right to let that sympathy determine your view. Or you argue that's not what you're doing at all. You can't use both defences at once.

You can argue both at once if you aren't equating "bestowing sympathy" with "being biased". It is possible to do that, rationally, if the sympathised-with can be distinguished from others by greater need or desert.

Your point only works if "progressive" sympathies are essentially arbitrary, and the fact that you want to categorise social progressive-ism as a single unified mind-set suggests to me that you don't, in fact, think that its sympathies are arbitrary, even if you think that they are mistaken.

[ 20. November 2017, 00:07: Message edited by: Eliab ]

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

Either you argue that you're right to bestow sympathy as you do, and right to let that sympathy determine your view. Or you argue that's not what you're doing at all. You can't use both defences at once.

I'd have thought it is pretty obvious to most people that one can indeed say both things at once.

If you start from the point that things are unfair and that the deity hates unfairness, then the key point about the bias is not randomly bestowing favours on friends, but restoring things to their rightful position.

Hence the idea of Jubilee. Hence the idea of the lowly lifted up. Hence the idea of the poor inheriting the earth.

The social-progressive mindset is the gospel. If anything is heretical around here, it is the idea that this somehow isn't the major theme of the scriptures.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This cartoon is a bit of a hackneyed meme now. But it is still true: giving extra to those who have least is not bad, it is justice.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The point of the parable of the workers in the vineyard is that in being generous to the latecomers the owner is not being unfair to those who have worked all day. He is entitled to be generous, even capricious, with his own money.

I keep coming back to this in my head. I can't let go of it.

The whole point is that the owner is perceived as unfair by those who have worked all day. Seriously, the WHOLE POINT of the parable.

That he is entitled to be generous doesn't change that.

I can't see into your head to understand how you rationalise "the owner's behaviour is allowable" and convert that into "therefore the owner's behaviour doesn't count as unfair in any way", but it seems to me you're engaging in this circular argument that goes something like this:

I've decided God is not biased or unfair, therefore anything that might show that God is in fact capable of bias will be redefined to not be bias.

The parable is the prime example of challenging the kinds of notions of equality and lack of bias that you elsewhere advocate. The very essence of the parable, in saying that the owner is not being unfair, is that the owner is not interested in the kinds of comparisons between people that you usually advocate. The owner is not unfair because he gives each worker what he had promised each worker. They get an outcome.

Most of the time you're not interested in outcomes. You think there's something problematic in giving disadvantaged people a helping hand to get them to the same outcome as those who have worked harder or longer.

Seriously, do you not normally subscribe to notions like "the same work for the same pay"? Do you not consider it unfair that someone who hasn't worked gets as much money as someone who has?

The parable supports those who think that everyone should get a decent quality of life regardless of circumstances.

[ 20. November 2017, 08:24: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
social-progressives do not see themselves as wanting to change the rules solely on the basis of whom they sympathise and don't sympathise with.

That's not what I'm hearing here.
Technically true unless you're using a speech reader.

quote:
If you look back at the various pro-s-p responses, how many are saying

"You're right that bias is a bad thing but that's not what social progressivism is"

and how many are saying

"we're biased and proud of it"

??

I believe you are the only person who has used either of those phrases. If you think they're accurate paraphrases of what other people are saying you might be better off quoting or linking to the posts you're thinking of.
There are some people who have been defending 'bias' in the sense that a doctor is 'biased' towards treating sick people. Or in the sense that the justice system ought to be 'biased' towards the accused. Or else have otherwise been arguing that morality or God demand an option for the poor over the rich. But none of that is properly called bias.
If morality or God demand that you tax wealthy people to feed people who don't have food then refusing to tax wealthy people is a bias towards the wealthy.

quote:
Either you argue that you're right to bestow sympathy as you do, and right to let that sympathy determine your view. Or you argue that's not what you're doing at all. You can't use both defences at once.
The first sentence there contains one more step than necessary. You can have views determining sympathies or sympathies determining views: you've got both.
One might argue that one's views determine one's distribution of sympathies. That is not biased if the distribution of sympathies follows appropriately from one's views. Another moral strand in our culture - the Adam Smith position - might argue the position that one sympathises with everyone and then allows one's sympathies to determine one's views. That again would not be biased. In order to insinuate bias you have to have the views being determined by partial sympathies; in order to remain in touching distance of what people have actually been saying you have to acknowledge that people are saying that their sympathies are determined by their views: hence your clumsy bodging of the two positions together.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It partakes of some elements of Christianity - e.g. concern for the poor and outcast - and rejects others

I suspect we'd all agree that Christianity involves concern for the poor and outcast. What I'm trying to suggest to you is that there is more than one form that that concern can take.

And the form that involves screwing the rich comes out of the envy in the human heart and not out of the text of the gospel.

Jesus saw the rich young man who claimed to have kept all the commandments, and loved him. Jesus told him to give away all he had, not because the riches were ill-gotten, or wrong in principle, but because that individual's attachment to his wealth and the social position it brought him was keeping him from the closer relationship with God that his loving Father desired.

God loves us all. He wants an end to "us and them" type conflict.

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I suspect we'd all agree that Christianity involves concern for the poor and outcast. What I'm trying to suggest to you is that there is more than one form that that concern can take.

And the form that involves screwing the rich comes out of the envy in the human heart and not out of the text of the gospel.

Bullshit. I'm not envious of the rich because I am the rich.

The gospel (or the gospel of welcome as I've described above) is not for people like me. In fact, it is dead against people like me.

quote:
Jesus saw the rich young man who claimed to have kept all the commandments, and loved him. Jesus told him to give away all he had, not because the riches were ill-gotten, or wrong in principle, but because that individual's attachment to his wealth and the social position it brought him was keeping him from the closer relationship with God that his loving Father desired.
Jesus wanted to redistribute his wealth. How is that somehow different to what I've been saying?

quote:
God loves us all. He wants an end to "us and them" type conflict.
You just seem to be blithely ignoring the actual text of the NT. Haven't you heard that "from everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."?

How are you understanding that other than a statement that more is expected from those who have more?

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

And the form that involves screwing the rich comes out of the envy in the human heart

Do you accept that the same impulse could also have been behind the initial acquisition of wealth in the first place?

In fact, if we are going to put down every attempt at redistribution - however mild - as being down to envy - why does that not also apply to every attempt at acquisition?

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't accept that "taking back things that the rich shouldn't have accumulated" is somehow "screwing" them.

Otherwise how do you justify Jubilee? Every 7 years the "rich" are "screwed".

This is nonsense. And nothing to do with Christianity.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I suspect we'd all agree that Christianity involves concern for the poor and outcast. What I'm trying to suggest to you is that there is more than one form that that concern can take.

And the form that involves screwing the rich comes out of the envy in the human heart and not out of the text of the gospel.

Interesting. When it comes to behaviour that involves screwing people of minority races you tell us that it doesn't necessarily come out of racism.
When it comes to behaviour that involves screwing gay people or women you tell us that it doesn't necessarily come out of homophobia or sexism. We don't have any direct insight into motives.
When it comes to behaviour that involves screwing the poor you tell us that it's not motivated by animus and we oughtn't to let our partisan sympathies rush us to judgement on other people.
When it comes to behaviour that involves screwing the rich suddenly it all comes from envy.

Why the sudden change of tune?

And what do you mean by 'screwing the rich?' Reducing the rich to less than the current levels of the poor would certainly count? But does redistribution to equality count as screwing the rich? That would suggest that at the moment the poor are screwed.

quote:
Jesus told him to give away all he had, not because the riches were ill-gotten, or wrong in principle, but because that individual's attachment to his wealth and the social position it brought him was keeping him from the closer relationship with God that his loving Father desired.
There is a difference between explaining away a text that seems to support the contrary position, and finding a text that actually supports your position. The above is the former.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  21  22  23 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools