Interfaith group launches social justice campaign (Jim Wallis/Sojourners Barf Alert)

Dayton Daily News ^ | 3-15-2006 | William Hershey

[NZerFromHK]

Unfortunately people like such are regarded as heroes of faith among many Asian Christians - yes, the same Christians who are touted as Christianity-thriving-in-Asia crowd. But to be fair, they are conservative on gay marriage, abortions, drugs, relativism/moral absolutes, but they believe moral absolutes on war/peace/WOT, economics, and social welfare mean taking the leftist stand.

[theBuckwheat]

>>
They had the right to glean in someone else's field, but they still had to work for it and it was not handed to them.
<<

Yes, and more importantly with respect to "social justice" is that while the farmer also was not to harvest to the corner of his field, he did not have to worry that the corner would expand each year (to fund "vital unmet needs") and eventually become the majority of the field.

In other words, the same Authority that gave the Commandment against coveting and theft and also commanded provision for the poor knew the difference between a "taking" and a "tax". He did not protect property rights on the one hand (in the Commands) and give society an open-ended way to destroy property rights on the other (wealth transfer).

Advocates of "social justice" will never fully cite the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16) because it is chock full of support for free-market principles: the right to own your own labor, the right to negotiate a mutually acceptable wage, the right to enforce a contract, the right to own and control property, the obligation of an employer to promptly pay his workers, among others.

This parable defines real "social justice" in its summation by Our Lord himself: "Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money?" (Mt 20:15).

To the extent that advocates of "social justice" seek to collectivize property and money for purposes of central planning, they destroy the very rights protected in the Ten Commands as well as the principles shown in the rest of the Scriptures.

Let me repeat: socialism is founded on three sins: Lies, Coveting and Theft. God will not bless any system founded on sin.

[attiladhun2]

The majority of Christ's parables presuppose a free market system. "Christian" socialists pull the instance in the Acts of the Apostles where is says "they had all things in common" and cite that as an example of pure "Christian" Communism--wrong--for one thing it was a temporary measure and for another, it was entirely voluntary. Real charity is always voluntary. Coherced charity is not charity at all, but government confiscation. Since the "social justice" crowd advocates this, they are in reality advocates of injustice.

[attiladhun2]

Not the "social justice" crowd here in the States. They don't come out frontally for queer marriage, but say "it ought to be left to the courts"--which is just an underhanded way of backing it. They say they are against abortion and then back the infanticide Yoni ibn Qerri.
The Sojos are merely a wing of the Democrat party, and are probably a bit further left than most in it.

[NZerFromHK]

It is interesting. How do we persuade Asian Christians of dismantling the social welfare systems, free market, and that sometimes wars are necessary?

These are genuinely people with divided opinions, unlike a lot of fakes in the US who are actually anti-Christian on stands like gay marriage and abortions.

[theBuckwheat]

Not only is real charity voluntary, but real charity protects property rights because both the giver and the recipient recognize which of the two has full control and ownership of the item being given up until it that ownership is transferred.

When an advocate of "social justice" instructs me that "we must share our blessings with others", he is telling me a lie that justifies coveting in order to facilitate theft.

First, he has totally different meanings for almost every word in that statement than the dictionary does. This is deliberate on his part.

"we" in social-justice-speak means those who the elite decide must comply but not those who are exempted.

"must" is not a strong moral imperative, but the threat of coercion by armed government agents.

"share" means taking from those who the elites decide will be targeted.

"others" means those who the elites decide will benefit.

(It goes without saying that many advocates of "social justice" support it because they hope to be in the elite group that makes the rules for everyone else.)

The legal system is used (under the color of law), to define the tax obligation as the instant it is qualified. This means, for example, the instant your employer owes you $100 in wages, that government has title to the taxes on that $100 even though you have not yet received the money from your employer. The government pushes itself in line to be first to be paid, indeed even imposing a scheme of withholding to prevent the taxpayer from failing to remit the taxes owed.

So, the "charity" is a pure lie, as the money to be used in these "charity" schemes are taken from taxpayers before the taxpayer can even get paid. He never has title to the amount owed. Since he never has title, he cannot control conveyance. This is not charity at all.

Further and just as importantly, charity is at the discretion of the titleholder of the gift. He can decide to give more, or less, as his conscience dictates based on how the giver perceives the need and based on his knowledge of his ability to give.

"Social Justice" takes without any concern over the needs of those it takes from. It gives to those who qualify for the wealth transfer without having the ability to give more to those who deserve more, and less to those who deserve less. Anyone qualifying to receive the benefits must receive them.

As I wrote before "social justice" is based on three sins: lies, coveting and theft.

[attiladhun2]

In other words, Biblical Christianity is antitheitical to the Sojo version such that, the Sojos are Christian in name only and are really Marxists spouting Christian terms. Jesus warned us about wolves in sheep's clothing.

[theBuckwheat]

Christ lamented that people called him "lord", but did not obey Him. John the Baptist said in John 3:36 that whoever rejects the Son will not see life. The Greek word that the NIV translates "rejects" is more honestly translated "disobeys": Whoever disobeys the Son will not see life.

Jesus dictated the book of Revelation and closed it by warning against that anyone found adding to or taking away from the book will be denied eternal life (22:18). Just a few verses prior to that warning is a statement that people who practice "falsehood" (among others) cannot be allowed into the Kingdom (a metaphor for salvation).

Putting this all together is a far stronger statement of what Christ finds acceptable and what He does not than most Christians are used to hearing in today's watered down, feel good, preaching of what is supposed to be the "gospel".

Advocates of "sojo" (social justice") are grossly mistaken in their attempt to formulate a private idea of what Christ defines as right and wrong. Worse, their idea is subject to the whims of ideological fashion and passion such that it desires to save the rain forest while helping women to kill their unborn children.

Only Christ can speak for Christ, and He does that pretty well, if people will only be honest about the simple statements they read. Foremost, Christ said that he did not come to destroy any part of the Law, a point which sojo advocates cannot abide if only because the law forbids coveting, lies and theft, the three points upon which their collectivism is founded.

[Billthedrill]

"Social justice" = "theft." Try substituting the terms sometime when you hear these guys spout.

The idea, as you've already explained, is that an unequal distribution of material goods is "unjust," and that "justice" consists of equalizing the distribution of goodies. By whatever means necessary including expropriation. Theft.