If you allow me some edge, I think that usually has a bread-and-circus nature - not sufficient to lift them out of poverty, but enough to win their support and/or toleration. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
I have been informed by several members in good standing of fundagelical American churches that "the poor will always be with us" (chapter this-or-that, verse something-or-another), so nothing we can do can prevent the poor from starving - therefore, we might as well not bother. Or words to that effect anyway - it's been a while since I tired of pointing and laughing at fundagelicals.
I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of their Christian piety. Their sanity, yes. But not their piety.
No party or society adheres to biblical ethics through and through. They always pick and choose the bits they like based on other criteria (cultural, ethical, political, tactical). Nothing wrong with that, of course, but please don't pretend that you're doing something else, or I shall have to drag out Leveticus, Judges and Revelations and quote you where it says that wearing mixed polyester-cotton clothes is a capital offence. Chapter and verse.
BibleGateway.com: Acts 5:1-11
Acts 5 Ananias and Sapphira 1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet. 3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God." 5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him. 7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?" "Yes," she said, "that is the price." 9Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also." 10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.
Ananias and Sapphira
1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.
3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."
5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?" "Yes," she said, "that is the price."
9Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."
10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.
Relieving suffering is all well and good, but addressing the social injustice that causes suffering is more important in the long term. Look what Ratzinger did to the Liberation Theology movement when he was Wojtila's Chief Inquisitor. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
the "a priori" and its like are (I think) what define the limits of policy (manifestos)--a friend of mine suggested that we need a new rule book, that everyone in the world can subscribe to. The Koran is a rule book, the Torah is a rule book, Paul's letters in the New Testament are, when put together, a rule book--
So why not a new rule book? I'd have a non-hoarding rule in there--maybe a multiple of the minimum wage as the maximum an individual is allowed to own--including properties, etc--so when one reaches the limit one can by all means acquire more things, but at the same time other things must be given away, and they'll be given freely because profits would push the amount over the maximum again...
Only a pithier version.
What I'm thinking is: you're right, I don't want policy makers to be using The New Testament to make rules--
Eye of a needle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:24
has managed lo these many years to be comfortably spoken to rich people without them being hounded from the church or if they have been hounded, there have been other churches happy to accomodate them--shifting interpretations! More like: I have my idea of what it means, and I'm right!
So: as a non-rhetorical question, given that religious texts are not valid as the basis of policy due to their inevitable internal contradictions, inconsistencies, and historical and other confusions or limitations, on what basis should one make policy? I mean, what texts should be used, or is the written word in itself dubious because all texts are open to various interpretations, the keener the mind the more ingenious (but that's what lawyers do with rules--)--so I think you're right and I wonder--if one can create, say, twelve rules that all humans could find acceptable--without that meaning that--or would it mean that six billion interpretations would flow and shift--so yes, but if I were a believer in one of the world's rule books I would ask: what are your rules--that limit the a priori concepts from which policies will flow? I suppose because a person whose actions are limited and determined by a specific set of texts will have a different approach to a person whose actions are--changing based on ever-changing information from an endless supply of texts...ach! And all the positions in between! Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
