[soma]

When man becomes active in the world, he is oriented either towards union with God by working with his body and mind or away from God by exploiting the world for the glory of man and not for the glory of God. When the mind is thinking of man’s power as the goal, things are not only used, but misused, violated and destroyed. Men are no longer thought of as made in the image and likeness of God, but as working parts for production, as a means for profit. This degradation is against the essential inborn interest of man’s consciousness because it keeps people in the lower layers of the mind so they can’t experience the summit of the realized soul.

The Religious Right, has become a potent force in American politics. Its rank and file are organized, energetic, devoted, and earnest. These Conservative Christians do what they are told by their ungodly, rich, authoritarian leaders to exploit and oppress the poor. Hitler understood manipulation and used old hatreds, fears and national schisms to exploit people similar to what the Religious Right are doing today.

Isaiah 10
1 Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,

2 to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless.

3 What will you do on the day of reckoning,
when disaster comes from afar?
To whom will you run for help?
Where will you leave your riches?Religious Right

This post has been edited by soma: 12 March 2009 - 10:39 PM

[minsocal]

The issue of substantive justice passes through many of the prophets and culminates in the teachings of Jesus. As I have often noted, the issue of substantive justice is by far the most frequently mentioned subject in the Bible. There is, perhaps, a reason for this? I would think so.

[grampawombat]

A case can be made for the statement in the first post if by "the religious right" you mean people like Falwell and Robertson. But a lot of the rank and file of politically conservative evangelicals do not fall into this category, at least with regard to personal involvement with the poor. They can be quite generous, particularly if they believe that the conditions of poverty came about through no fault of the individual. And this is often the case if these folks actually know the impoverished person. It is in the general and abstract that they often fail to understand the need for compassion. There is also the problem of what issues affect them the most. So while they may be quite active in their opposition to women's right to privacy or to LGBT folks, their general altruistic instincts may be misdirected or blunted.

[minsocal]

grampawombat, on Mar 25 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

A case can be made for the statement in the first post if by "the religious right" you mean people like Falwell and Robertson. But a lot of the rank and file of politically conservative evangelicals do not fall into this category, at least with regard to personal involvement with the poor. They can be quite generous, particularly if they believe that the conditions of poverty came about through no fault of the individual. And this is often the case if these folks actually know the impoverished person. It is in the general and abstract that they often fail to understand the need for compassion. There is also the problem of what issues affect them the most. So while they may be quite active in their opposition to women's right to privacy or to LGBT folks, their general altruistic instincts may be misdirected or blunted.

I am finding, more and more now, that the 'category' of the religious right is less well defined as say, 10 years ago. I thought, at first, it was the younger evangelicals moving away from tradition, but I am now finding this is not always the case. Why the continued opposition to women's rights or the LBGT community? I'm not sure, but it seems to have something to do with perceived loyalties where the "group" is either some or all? A group of some or a group of all. That would be the issue being discussed on the "Authentic Paul" thread. Possibly, the early church blunted the radical egalitarian message of Paul (as found in the teachings of Jesus) to make it "'more acceptable".

This post has been edited by minsocal: 25 March 2009 - 04:17 PM

[soma]

Minsocal good reply, I guess education is a great service one can apply to broaden understanding.

[minsocal]

soma, on Apr 5 2009, 02:22 PM, said:

Minsocal good reply, I guess education is a great service one can apply to broaden understanding.

As I understand Jesus and Paul, we cannot continue to live apart. Those cast out must be brought back in. BUT NOT JUST ON ANY TERMS ... and NEVER on the terms of those who cast them out. That is how I see it. Anyone agree?