Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[Fat Strat]

Again, this is not the thread for this discussion.

That said, Jesus taught a personal faith and personal action within a community of faith. You go out and help the poor, don't just leave it to the government. Matthew 25.

Now, I'm not suggesting that the government shouldn't do good things. Far from it. Rather, for Jesus it was the personal acts of faith that matter, not the institutional ones.

Jesus was for both. Sin can, and is present in social structures as well as in the individual heart. When individuals combine their efforts to get more done, 99% of the time you need some form of gevernment/hierarchy to facilitate over it.

I individually can't get person A the medical care they need, but a local government initiative could. Sinful social structures are evil too.

I'm not saying thier mutually exclusive and that all acts of faith need to be personal. Individuals can play a big personal role within institutional structures and hierarchies. A lot of individual acts make up one big great thing.

[Popeye_Card]

Ah, that's the old "give a man a fish vs. teaching him to fish" thing. That's what the government programs are for!

No, it was actually about Jesus pointing to his divinity. The crowd wasn't trusting in Jesus as God, they were just trusting in him to fill their stomachs. There was a famine at the time, there was no way for them to learn to fish. Jesus was trying to teach them that there were more improtant things than food and that they missed the point of his miracle.[/quote]

It's still the same philosophy. The point wasn't the handout, nor was it teaching a skill. Giving somebody better means to an education is preparing them for life, not just teaching them a specific skill.

[JCShutout]

Again, this is not the thread for this discussion.

That said, Jesus taught a personal faith and personal action within a community of faith. You go out and help the poor, don't just leave it to the government. Matthew 25.

Now, I'm not suggesting that the government shouldn't do good things. Far from it. Rather, for Jesus it was the personal acts of faith that matter, not the institutional ones.

Jesus was for both. Sin can, and is present in social structures as well as in the individual heart. When individuals combine their efforts to get more done, 99% of the time you need some form of gevernment/hierarchy to facilitate over it.

I individually can't get person A the medical care they need, but a local government initiative could. Sinful social structures are evil too.

I'm not saying thier mutually exclusive and that all acts of faith need to be personal. Individuals can play a big personal role within institutional structures and hierarchies. A lot of individual acts make up one big great thing.

++ I think i see what you mean now. I thought you were saying structures were unimportant. I agree that people shoulden't consider government institutions as a cop out for them doing what's right, and that both are important. You have to be active personally, not passive.

See? This is why I see you as an ally.

[Fat Strat]

Those of you who may fall into the socialist camp, that it's the gov't responsibility to help the poor, ask yourself this: Am I doing all that I can do personally to help those in need? If yes, then argue away. If not, get busy working before you start talking.

That was really the crux of my original point. I don't have any real problem with government-run social programs. IMO, though, and I realize this is up for debate (and again, this is not really the thread for this), Christ is much more concerned about what you are doing individually to act on your faith.

That could be supporting a government program. It could be supporting a faith-based initiative. It might be volunteering on your own. Regardless, do something!

The real differences here though, are that I'm a liberation theologian christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology), fat is not, even though his church is pretty socially concious (based on that facebook thing you sent about your church). The only (major) difference between us IMO (let me know if I'm wrong) is that I think the poor are a/the primary part of God's message, and Fat thinks its a secondary effect of the faith. I'm not concerned with getting into heaven as much as bringing the kindom to earth. Not that there isn't a concern for the here and now with fat's group, it just isn't as primary. (let me know if that's off)

I really have the upmost respect for Fat, because he and his group DOES incorporate both sides of the spectrum. I'd take it further to the left than him, but I respect their efforts and easily consider him an ally. If that makes sense.

That is the big difference between us, but we agree on the end result. I would also add, though, that characterizing "helping the poor" as a secondary effect of faith is somewhat misleading, while at the same time being somewhat accurate. It's not as cut and dry as primary and secondary responsibilities, since they are absolutely hand in hand. It's sort of a chicken vs. the egg arguement. They're both necessary and one without the other is playing with fire, so to speak.

[Fat Strat]

++ I think i see what you mean now. I thought you were saying structures were unimportant. I agree that people shoulden't consider government institutions as a cop out for them doing what's right, and that both are important. You have to be active personally, not passive.

See? This is why I see you as an ally.

yeah, I can see how that was interpreted from what I said, but I tried to keep my first statements brief since I was trying to avoid being controversial and didn't necessarily want to extend this conversation in this thread. I failed at both, but at least it was a nice, friendly tangent!

[JCShutout]

That is the big difference between us, but we agree on the end result. I would also add, though, that characterizing "helping the poor" as a secondary effect of faith is somewhat misleading, while at the same time being somewhat accurate. It's not as cut and dry as primary and secondary responsibilities, since they are absolutely hand in hand. It's sort of a chicken vs. the egg arguement. They're both necessary and one without the other is playing with fire, so to speak.

and... yeah, I can see how that was interpreted from what I said, but I tried to keep my first statements brief since I was trying to avoid being controversial and didn't necessarily want to extend this conversation in this thread. I failed at both, but at least it was a nice, friendly tangent!

Yeah, I was trying to to say that but was rushed. In a sense I think its hand in hand too. Maybe we just use different language. I think we can both agree that both our own lives and our institutions need redemption.

I haven't been in a political thread for awhile, so I forgot how they can get extended and crazy. lol.

[Cole Burns]

Politically, the point is you can't use this miracle to say Jesus was for social programs. There were no social programs in his day so it's a moot point. We have to look elsewhere, in his teaching, to find his response to something like that. The best scripture to use is Jesus saying, "When you do this (clothe, feed, visit) to the least of them, you do it to me." His point here is that the debate should be over, we help the poor and needy wihtout reservation, but we have to lead the front as Christians, not expect the gov't to do it even if they do.

I won't get into the loaves and fishes because I personally haven't researched that section as much, but whoa, there were TONS of social programs through the temple. Read like 70% of the laws dude. Tons of money, donations, food which went to the poor. Rules to ensure people didn't get screwed over on borrowing, etc. Rules to make sure the poor weren't overworked or taken advantage of. Rules to lift people from debt every 7 years. Jesus supported these and even condemned those who used their religious and economic power to suppress. Jesus even directly challanged social structures by talking and associating with women, non-Jews and lepers, treating them as equals, and thus criticizing the system that considered them otherwise.

I think the difference is between Temple and Gov't. I translate any temple/religious laws in Jesus' time to refer to present-day Christendom, ie. individual churches or the body of Christ in general. If Jesus supports these initiatives then he is referring to the church. The Roman rulers of Jesus day I translate as present day Gov't. We probably differ on this interpretation, but get to the same point, I think.

The real differences here though, are that I'm a liberation theologian christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology), fat is not, even though his church is pretty socially concious (based on that facebook thing you sent about your church). The only (major) difference between us IMO (let me know if I'm wrong) is that I think the poor are a/the primary part of God's message, and Fat thinks its a secondary effect of the faith. I'm not concerned with getting into heaven as much as bringing the kindom to earth. Not that there isn't a concern for the here and now with fat's group, it just isn't as primary. (let me know if that's off)

I would be in Fat's camp here, and I think you're close. I don't think in terms of primary/secondary. Jesus was asked what the most improtant law was. His response was "Love your God with all your heart, mind and strength." He then added, "And the second is just like it: Love your neighbor as yourself." Some translate this to mean Commandment #1 and #2, but what he means is #1 Love God, and how do we do that? By loving people. So, our emphasis (Fat & mine, and other's) is on the spiritual nature of salvation that is reflected in the physical, where you may stress the physical first. Again, we end up in the same space. Is this making sense?

I don't think "liberal" or "conservative" should be used to define Jesus. I think you can support local grass-roots and smaller-government initiatives (more typical republican) to deal with a lot of these issues too.

Agreed.

[Leroy]

Heh, fat camp.

[AJ]

Heh, fat camp.

It's usually tough to pick up any dates at fat camp, I prefer STD clinics myself.

[JCShutout]

I would be in Fat's camp here, and I think you're close. I don't think in terms of primary/secondary. Jesus was asked what the most improtant law was. Jesus was asked what the most improtant law was. His response was "Love your God with all your heart, mind and strength." He then added, "And the second is just like it: Love your neighbor as yourself." Some translate this to mean Commandment #1 and #2, but what he means is #1 Love God, and how do we do that? By loving people. So, our emphasis (Fat & mine, and other's) is on the spiritual nature of salvation that is reflected in the physical, where you may stress the physical first. Again, we end up in the same space. Is this making sense?

This is my emphasis as well. This is the part of scripture I utilize the most. This is the one I usually have to throw at Christians to remind them that Christianity involves the poor (as if 80% of the bible isn't enough).

To love God is to love your neighbor. To love your neighbor (as yourself )is to want what is due to them (definition of justice). To love God is to do justice. If we truly love others as ourselves, then we would rally against what oppresses them with the same ferver as if we ourselves are being oppressed. "If one of us is chained, none of us are free." (Solomom Burke) Thus there is an intense urgency about the social structures which oppress others.

I used the words primary and secondary to try to point out some of our differences (or why we were bumping heads). I coulden't think of better words. I think we're close, but I don't want to get into heavy theological differences in this thread.