Hence, the Jesus of Nazareth Question: if the measure of a good society is how it treats the least of its members, how can any economics that tolerates neglect, exclusion, and inequality claim moral legitimacy?
The capitalist and free market – neoliberal even – economies have the richest poor people.
Which nicely solves that one.
Jesus he knows me, and he knows I’m right. I’ve been talking to Jesus all my life…
Maybe his mate Jesus can get him allowed into a pub in Downham Market. He is a miracle worker after all.
Spud has read the words of Jesus in the Book of Matthew and translated something about individual treatments of the least to meaning what should be done by government action. Libertarian Jesus springs to mind again:
/applause!
“the measure of a good society is how it treats the least of its members”
He’s thinking of socialism which protects the least among us from all temptation to us the Zil lanes of life.
“Is this ‘economics’ in the room with us right now?”
“if the measure of a good society is how it treats the least of its members” …. then inequality is an irrelevance. The far more important issue is absolute poverty.
A society where no one starves should measure higher than one were everyone starves equally.
Dear Mr F
Yes indeed, though in those starving societies some are more equal than others.
Inequality is the just the latest forever war with which the left can beat us. There will always be inequality in life, since that is what drives prosperity – people striving to produce what people want and getting rich in the process, while everyone else gets richer too, but not as much individually – 3% to the entrepreneur and 97% to the rest of the world – which leads to the left beating the entrepreneur up for fun and power.
Socialism is great at creating equality: we are all equal when we are dead, and socialism achieves that in spades.
DP
Quakers were founded in the Christian tradition, but do not demand adherence to that faith now.
The problem with religion is that a lot of people just find a version that matches what they want it to be. Most of the CofE are a bunch of socialists, so they just pretend like Jesus said it. The Quakers are just pussies who don’t want to go to war. But, they still wanted other people to stop their wives getting gang raped by the Wehrmacht. Cunts.
It’s why I object to selective use of the bible or the torah. If you’re a Jew, you’d better be stoning loose women to death. Not because I want loose women stoned to death, but you don’t really believe in God if you don’t follow the written word of God.
Perhaps, but according to Ritchie’s own admission, he is not a Christian, and neither is the heretical cult he belongs to:
It is for that reason that Jesus of Nazareth – a person who I do not doubt existed, whatever else is claimed about him
Very kind of Ritchie to “not doubt” that “Jesus of Nazareth” “existed”, before going on to try to co-opt the Pancreator in the nutty professor’s retarded scheme to get into the House of Lords because his other retirement plan is the Lottery.
Selective use of the Torah is the foundation of the entire Jewish religion though. Their theology is based around lawyers arguments with God, and trying to trick the Creator with loopholes and distractions.
The Torah says observant Jews should refrain from doing certain activities on the sabbath. So rather than obey, they strung up a wire in Golders Green, called it an eruv, and assume God won’t notice their sins.
It’s why Jesus Christ got rather cross with the Pharisees. Christians are not supposed to play word games with the LORD either, but they’re just as sinful, thick-necked and dishonest as the Jews are. So we get things like the Quakers – faintly Christian flavoured socialist heretics – and the simpering climate/homo/rapefugee worshipping feebs currently running the Church of England and the Catholic Church into the ground.
Like you, I struggle to understand in what sense such people “believe” in “God”. Because to my simple mind, by creating a God in their own image, they demonstrate a lack of fear. Anybody with no fear of the Supreme Being hasn’t been paying attention. I would positively leg it if He showed up.
You seem to be attracted to evil men. You are a woman who has boasted to attraction to bad boys and bullies. It ia evil to be attracted to bullies and bad boys. You have serious Daddy issues with your relationship with an imaginary God who you want to punish you and other people.
You have serious Daddy issues with your relationship with an imaginary God
Father!
Father!
Father!
Father into your hands, I commend my spirit.
You claim to be Christian. Yet you admitted you have no morality.
What on Earth is the point in religion if it has no morality?
Religious people expect special treatment on the grounds they are all good moral people. Then someone like you makes us discover some Christians hate niceness and hate morality. And in your case you have said you support bullies.
It just seems to be some derranged BS vile nonsense.
You call me a weirdo. And then you support some weird vile horrific version of no morality Christianity. That just wants some weird warped Father figure.
C’mon BP.
EVERYONE expects special treatment on the grounds that they are good moral people!!
“The Torah says observant Jews should refrain from doing certain activities on the sabbath. So rather than obey, they strung up a wire in Golders Green, called it an eruv, and assume God won’t notice their sins.”
Ha. That’s just that thing of collective lies. Everyone in the group knows its bullshit, but no-one will stick their neck out and say “look, let’s be honest, we don’t care about the sabbath”.
Lying – to oneself, or others – about the sacred and the supernatural is dangerous. For one thing, the Great Attractor has a tendency to take these lies, and make them true (somehow). In the End, we can run on for a long time, but we cannot escape God’s plan. All of spacetime curves towards Him.
Baby …
As far as I’m aware the eruv goes back to the shtetls in Russia. Which were majority Jewish communities. The principal behind it is shabbat is day when Jews exercise their freedom from the regular labours of everyday life. But for practical purposes, certain labours have to be performed or the community cannot function. So those activities are permitted within the community. Jews see a community as “house” they live in. Houses are contiguous structures so the eruv defines the limit of the house.
So it’s actually the opposite of what you’re saying. It’s not an area in which they can “sin”. It’s area where the shabbat freedom from labour is suspended for certain activities. It’s not a benefit, it’s a duty imposed.
From Wiki: The term eruv is a shortening of eruv chatzerot (עירוב חצרות), literally a “merger of [different] domains” (into a single domain). This makes carrying within the area enclosed by the eruv no different from carrying within a single private domain (such as a house owned by an individual), which is permitted.
So you can see the origin of the concept. In the home some labour has to be performed, shabbat or not. Like Christians regard Sunday as a day of rest but it doesn’t exclude the wife from cooking Sunday lunch.
It is of course a very Christian thing to denigrate other religions without trying to understand them. The Christian supremacy concept. Which almost the whole history of Christianity. All those persecutions & wars
Jews take the injunction to “Love thy neigbour” rather more seriously than Christians do.
And something you doubtless don’t know. Orthodox Jews do not respect the erun. They regard the prohibition of performing certain tasks on shabbat extends to the home. To get round this, for practical purposes, they employ what’s known as the shabbos goy. Strictly speaking that would be a non-Jew or goy although some extend it to non-religious Jews. I’ve actually done this in my capacity as a suspected non-religious Jew, although they would never ask. It’s to be regarded a somewhat of an honour, that you are a trusted friend of the family. But it must be voluntary & paid. They get quite shirty if you attempt to refuse payment. Although, of course, it will always be in advance or arrears because they can’t count money on shabbat. That’s your job.
It’s quite trivial stuff. Turning on light switches, whatever. And you’re trusted with the key to the door & in my case the security codes because they don’t answer to callers
Apologies WB. That lot was actually directed at Steve not you. He’s the proselyting God Botherer about there.
All theologies are this. It’s the inevitable cognitive dissonance from knowing deep down that there is no God. They’re tricking themselves about rules they made up themselves so it doesn’t really matter. They know God can’t see them doing it because they know God doesn’t exist. It’s the same cognitive dissonance, of course, that leads them to burn heretics and umbelievers. How dare you hold up a mirror to my pathetic, desperate, empty, venal self!
You have to admire the Catholic church, though. The gob smacking racket they turned it into is/was an absolute marvel. Top marks to Henry VIII for stealing the fucking lot, all in the name of God of course. Lol.
I’m sorry, you’ve gotten it fronty-backy.
For example, re the eruvving. Orthodox Jews are deeply religious people who go through real inconveniences for their religion. It’s just that, theologically, belief in Yahweh is matched by a sometimes equally powerful belief in haggling. Projecting the mindset of nonbelief on to the religious is generally a mistake, and also – unrelated – how come historical characters in modern fiction tend to be poorly writ.
Heretic burning isn’t a repressed closetry thing at all, it’s a pure and warm expression of sincere religious zeal. Same energy as on Summerisle
Steve…. true…. still doesn’t answer the Question why an Omnipotent Being actually needs our worship….
Admittedly… this got me into Trouble, and got me Disqualified for Seminary, at… 9 yrs old….
Old Truth….If a 9-13 yr. old boy can Spot The Haxx ( and dares to put his Foot down, and..)…. weeeeeelllll……
God doesn’t need our worship. We are the ones who need to worship.
What you are saying is you need to talk yourselves into your faith. Why do you need to do that?
Religion: By the Priests, For the Priests…
Actual …”spirituality” …. takes many forms, and is highly Personal.
The only question there is whether or not it gives you Comfort in your inevitable Final Moments…
If it doesn’t, and is set up to not to…..
Better pick another Flavour….
Suddenly no edit option….. sooooo…..
The oldest version of that is in bloody cuneiform and…contemporary.. hieroglyphics….
I’m hardly the first to notice this….
I have a certain respect for Jews because they generally don’t try to do this. To them the Torah is not the Word of God. It is the Word of God as related by men. And men are fallible & not always comprehensible. So their religious disputes are about what exactly did he mean when he wrote that. And about the subsequent interpretations based on the initial ones.
It’s Christians tend to claim unique insights directly into the mind of God.
Selective use of the Torah is the foundation of the entire Jewish religion though. Their theology is based around lawyers arguments with God, and trying to trick the Creator with loopholes and distractions.
Yes Steve. And the apocryphal Jesus was another one.
Most of the CofE are a bunch of socialists…
Clergy, yes: they preach the so-called ‘Social Gospel’, very enthusiastically. Congregations, less so: c.65% IIRC practising Anglicans voted for Brexit – and slightly lower % IIRC favour benefit cuts….
The Quakers are just pussies who don’t want to go to war.
Some of my great-grandparents were Quakers, but they couldn’t be pacifists in WW1 and WW2. One of my cousins was brought up as a strict Quaker. Now, Quakers are not even Christian…
I’m fine with pacifism. You wish not to take another man’s life? I am fine with that. You can clear minefields, where you will not take another man’s life.
Desmond Doss was a pacifist (Seventh Day Adventist) and war hero.
At incredible risk to himself, and despite being badly wounded, he saved 75 men at the Battle of Okinawa. Never fired a shot in anger.
“The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth…
Usually in a shallow grave.”
RAH. as the character Lazarus Long.
“Almost every man is a pacifist at heart. Fighting is nasty business that could get you hurt or worse. War is even worse.
So a sensible man strives for a peaceful solution to disagreements.
That does, of course, only work if that same man is also quite capable and willing to keep a non-pacifist approach on the table.
Because not all men are sensible..”
Various versions from Sun Tzu to Churchill through the Ages.
This one is roughly translated from Talhoffer, on *why* people should study (his) sword arts.
“The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth”
Jordan Peterson claims that the true translation of that bible phrase should be something along the lines of ‘Those who have swords but choose not to use them shall inherit the earth’. Thus implying the Christian ideal is not a non-violent meek and mild type, rather a muscular person capable of doing harm, but choses not to, or uses their capability for violence to protect others.
Whether JP is FoS I have no idea. The phrase does make more sense in his interpretation, but that doesn’t make him right.
It’s what works, though.
The NT Greek word (praus) for “meek” signifies a person who has power but controls it with humility and gentleness, like a tamed wild horse.
Well thats kind of what JP is getting at I guess. There’s a big difference between a person incapable of projecting power, and one who could but doesn’t, other than to help others.
IIRC, Amon Goeth in Schindlers List liked to shoot prisoners from the balcony of his villa, until someone (Ben Kingsley?) mentioned that to have the power and not use it is far more powerful than using it.
The trouble with this is if you don’t use your power, eventually people decide you don’t have it.
For example, would we have so much trouble with guerilla wars if any country where they occurred was instantly turned into a desert of radioactive glass??
“the measure of a good society is how it treats the least of its members”
A successful society is one that gets to take credit for what individuals have done.
Communism 101.
Jesus also stated that the poor will always be with us. (Matthew 26: 11)
If it’s too much of a struggle for the Son of God, then maybe we should learn from such infinite wisdom.
The poor in Britain today would be unimaginably rich in the Roman world. Jesus was right: the poor will always be with us because the definition of ‘poor’ will change as society gets richer. Adam Smith’s linen shirt is another way of saying the same thing.
And now the nutters on the left have got the accepted definition of poverty to be below some point on the income distribution, so that it is statistically impossible to reduce poverty. Which is nice if you’re a left-wing anti-poverty nutter because if the problem mathematically cannot be solved then there is job security in ‘advocating’ for solving it.
You do not directly answer the question, so I’ll put it more explicitly. Such an economics can claim moral legitimacy, not because it is perfect, but because the alternatives are worse. It is an error to fail to use an imperfect solution just because there is an imaginary perfect solution that nobody has managed to implement. We should stick with what works, and improve it as we find out how to do so.
No. We should stick with freedom. It matters not whether it “works.”
The problem with that attitude is that so many people have different definition of “freedom” to you.