Welcome friend!
Consider this your online Steve-and-Adam's room! Traber 611 Online! So kick back, grab your favorite SAGA-esque snack, turn down the lights, and get ready to relive the good old days!
I don't know, Ryan... it looks like it might have been made by some atheists or other non-Christians who couldn't possibly have any understanding about how to grow vegetables-- they are totatlly disconnected from Levitical farming regulations, after all.
nah, rain on the righteous and wicked both, general revelation and all that...I don't think anyone could be so out of touch with Levical farming. Nothing would grow.
Yet you say that no one at the United Nations could agree about rudimentary principals of justice because they are "Communists, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists" (I didn't realize that Communist was a religious affiliation). Prevenient grace, my friend, prevenient grace.
Then giving to the poor, supporting orphans and widows, paying workers just wages, and having environmentally sound agriculture and industry are necessarily part of a sound economic system.
well, yes, sort of. free-market capitalism in that we don't have the government usurping responsibilities from the family or the church. But as much as we need to keep the government out of charities and welfare we need the family and the church to assume their proper roles. I guess what I'm really talking about here is revival. We need to get back to the word and take another look at those levitical farming regulations.
What we need is a socio-politico-economic structure that doesn't systematically devest the poor of political representation, withold a fair wage from the poorest workers for the sake of minimal profit gains for executives, dehumanize workers at all levels and destroy the environment because of infrastructure costs. I'm talking about something much more endemic than charities and welfare: I'm talking about "you, your stuff and what you're supposed to do" on Wall Street, Madison Avenue and Capitol Hill.
If an economic system is a religion (which was YOUR formulation) then you cannot relegate these responsibilities to the realm of the Church and the Family-- the entire system is directly responsible.
I'm with you here, Coye. We need a system just like you say and it's got to work on all fronts, families, schools, businesses, the church, and the government. You have to set up this system though in such a way that the parts don't conflict but support each other in their individual functions. Our society is messed up in part because the government has been assigned responsibilities that rightly belong to the family (education) and the church (caring for the poor and needy).
How do we know which responsibilities to assign to each part? Remarkably, ask God. That is, look at the Bible. With the establishment of Israel we have an entire society constructed from scratch and at all levels in full harmony with God's holy character. I don't care if it was a different stage of history this has got to be the first place we look in setting goals for our own system. God's character does not change (holy) and neither does humans' (sinful) so the nature and function of family/church/government hasn't either. It's all there to help us deal with our sin and others' and to help us draw closer to God.
Out of curiosity: in your opinion, are economic systems religious to the extent that something like socialism would be in competition with Christianity? Are they mutually exclusive entities?
centralized ownership is not necessarily in opposition to Christianity, but it would have to be voluntary and everyone would have to have common values and goals as far as what they are trying to accomplish in their society. I can't see that working on anything but a very small scale. But in fact isn't that what happens in marriage and it hard enough to keep the peace just with the two people?
How did Star Wars get us to just economic systems? And isn't communism, technically a form of government. The economic system would technically be central command aka centrally planned economy. But that's a tad nit-picky. And communism did approach being a religion in the USSR, in my opinion, in that it expected people to be atheists, and the government tried to tell the people what gave meaning to life. Now as for declaring economic systems good or evil, I do not think an ideal economic system exists, because people are sinful. The real question is under what sort of system do we do the least damage to ourselves. High levels of central planning in its socialist forms may create greater equality, but it tends to lead to less to be distributed overall. Free markets provide people with more but less evenly distributed. I'm more in favor of free markets with mild central planning in the form of social safety nets for the poor than rampant socialism. Unless Jesus is running the centrally planned economy, heavily central planned economies scare me, even if I am the one given the authority to do the planning. Most modern economies are too complicated for me to believe that I would make things better. And other people running such decisions scares me, because there is no guarantees that they would value distribution of goods and services in a way that we would agree.
Speaking of econmic systems and religions; this morning I was reading in Mark about the two times Jesus fed an enormous amount of people with impossibly small amounts of start-up capital. The first time he feeds five-thousand with five loaves (and some fish) and there are twelve baskets left over. Then he feeds four thousand with seven loaves of bread (and some fish), and there are only seven baskets left over.
Then, later, we read:
"Now they had forgotten to bring bread, and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. And he cautioned them, saying, “Watch out; beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” And they began discussing with one another the fact that they had no bread. And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.” “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” And they said to him, “Seven.” And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?”"
19 comments:
I don't know, Ryan... it looks like it might have been made by some atheists or other non-Christians who couldn't possibly have any understanding about how to grow vegetables-- they are totatlly disconnected from Levitical farming regulations, after all.
nah, rain on the righteous and wicked both, general revelation and all that...I don't think anyone could be so out of touch with Levical farming. Nothing would grow.
Yet you say that no one at the United Nations could agree about rudimentary principals of justice because they are "Communists, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists" (I didn't realize that Communist was a religious affiliation). Prevenient grace, my friend, prevenient grace.
communism is a religion like nihilism is a religion. It is a bad idea that grows from bad beliefs.
and all this time I thought it was an economic system
economic system, religion, there's not much difference. It's you, your stuff, and what you're supposed to do in life.
Then giving to the poor, supporting orphans and widows, paying workers just wages, and having environmentally sound agriculture and industry are necessarily part of a sound economic system.
Sweet turn!
Hang on, don't you think that's where I was headed, too? :)
Actually, I thought you were headed towards free-market capitalism.
well, yes, sort of. free-market capitalism in that we don't have the government usurping responsibilities from the family or the church. But as much as we need to keep the government out of charities and welfare we need the family and the church to assume their proper roles. I guess what I'm really talking about here is revival. We need to get back to the word and take another look at those levitical farming regulations.
What we need is a socio-politico-economic structure that doesn't systematically devest the poor of political representation, withold a fair wage from the poorest workers for the sake of minimal profit gains for executives, dehumanize workers at all levels and destroy the environment because of infrastructure costs. I'm talking about something much more endemic than charities and welfare: I'm talking about "you, your stuff and what you're supposed to do" on Wall Street, Madison Avenue and Capitol Hill.
If an economic system is a religion (which was YOUR formulation) then you cannot relegate these responsibilities to the realm of the Church and the Family-- the entire system is directly responsible.
I'm with you here, Coye. We need a system just like you say and it's got to work on all fronts, families, schools, businesses, the church, and the government. You have to set up this system though in such a way that the parts don't conflict but support each other in their individual functions. Our society is messed up in part because the government has been assigned responsibilities that rightly belong to the family (education) and the church (caring for the poor and needy).
How do we know which responsibilities to assign to each part? Remarkably, ask God. That is, look at the Bible. With the establishment of Israel we have an entire society constructed from scratch and at all levels in full harmony with God's holy character. I don't care if it was a different stage of history this has got to be the first place we look in setting goals for our own system. God's character does not change (holy) and neither does humans' (sinful) so the nature and function of family/church/government hasn't either. It's all there to help us deal with our sin and others' and to help us draw closer to God.
Out of curiosity: in your opinion, are economic systems religious to the extent that something like socialism would be in competition with Christianity? Are they mutually exclusive entities?
centralized ownership is not necessarily in opposition to Christianity, but it would have to be voluntary and everyone would have to have common values and goals as far as what they are trying to accomplish in their society. I can't see that working on anything but a very small scale. But in fact isn't that what happens in marriage and it hard enough to keep the peace just with the two people?
How did Star Wars get us to just economic systems? And isn't communism, technically a form of government. The economic system would technically be central command aka centrally planned economy. But that's a tad nit-picky. And communism did approach being a religion in the USSR, in my opinion, in that it expected people to be atheists, and the government tried to tell the people what gave meaning to life. Now as for declaring economic systems good or evil, I do not think an ideal economic system exists, because people are sinful. The real question is under what sort of system do we do the least damage to ourselves. High levels of central planning in its socialist forms may create greater equality, but it tends to lead to less to be distributed overall. Free markets provide people with more but less evenly distributed. I'm more in favor of free markets with mild central planning in the form of social safety nets for the poor than rampant socialism. Unless Jesus is running the centrally planned economy, heavily central planned economies scare me, even if I am the one given the authority to do the planning. Most modern economies are too complicated for me to believe that I would make things better. And other people running such decisions scares me, because there is no guarantees that they would value distribution of goods and services in a way that we would agree.
Speaking of econmic systems and religions; this morning I was reading in Mark about the two times Jesus fed an enormous amount of people with impossibly small amounts of start-up capital. The first time he feeds five-thousand with five loaves (and some fish) and there are twelve baskets left over. Then he feeds four thousand with seven loaves of bread (and some fish), and there are only seven baskets left over.
Then, later, we read:
"Now they had forgotten to bring bread, and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. And he cautioned them, saying, “Watch out; beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” And they began discussing with one another the fact that they had no bread. And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.” “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” And they said to him, “Seven.” And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?”"
Do you think we ever got it?
Dave, I like what you had to say.
Post a Comment