GeorgeW

I heard an interesting (at least to me) comment by a pundit following the Republican convention about Mitt Romney. He said something to the effect that Romney is a generous person with people he knows, but is indifferent to needs of millions of people he doesn’t know. The purpose of this thread is not to critique Romney as such, but to examine this particular idea – generosity within a close group with indifference to the needs of strangers. I haven’t sorted how what I think about this. But, my initial thought is that this is the interaction of altruism and tribalism. Clearly, altruism is an evolutionary development in humans which allows us exist as social animals in groups larger than an extended family. On the other hand, we also have tribal instincts as well that cause us to distinguish between 'us' (friendlies) and 'them' (potential enemies). The result may be a deeper concern for our family and friends and much less for strangers and even less for adversaries and enemies. In his book, The Evolution of God, Robert Wright writes quite a bit about the development of universal love. In fact, he proposes that while Jesus promoted love among the Jews, it was Paul who expanded it to all humans. I have noticed this with conservative acquaintances who are basically caring people, but caring about those close to them. It seems to me that the more liberal one becomes, the wider the circle of concern becomes. Maybe this is one of the distinguishing features of conservatives and liberals (politically, socially and religiously). I would be interested in what other think about the distinction, if any, between concern for those close to us and concern for complete strangers. George

Excellent thought. George

Joseph, I think there is a big difference between "critical thinking" and "criticizing." The former entails careful, analytical thought and judgement while the latter involves fault finding. I can't think of many situations in which I would advise against critical thinking. I think we should carefully examine any proposition or assertion to determine if it has merit. However, fault finding should, IMO, be exercised much more judiciously and when it is potentially productive. George

Don't get me started. We give special tax breaks to highly profitable corporations like oil companies; we subsidize privately-owned sports arenas (e.g., GWB and his baseball team); we give handouts to large agribusiness and buy their excess crops; we tax capital gains and dividends at lower rates than labor, and on and on and on. Socialist, indeed. George

Frankly, I don't want anyone dying for my sins. I'll take responsibility subject to my limitations. George

That works in a simple, small scale society. However, in a modern, industrial world, no matter how generous I, and a few others, might be, I cannot make sure every American has health care and is free from hunger. However, we as a society can easily do that by insisting that everyone pay a reasonable share of their wealth. Also, it is worth noting that the early Christians did not provide the same level of care for their pagan brothers and sisters as their own. And, as a result they out survived them and Christianity grew in proportion. George

Yvonne, I see no value in confronting fundamentalists over benign aspects of their beliefs in such things as salvation. (If I were certain of the truth in these matters, maybe I would feel differently.) They have arrived at a belief system that is compatible with their psychological, social and intellectual needs. No harm, no foul. However, if they are espousing positions that are harmful to others such as racism, homophobia, sexism or the like dressed up as theology, I think we do have a right, maybe an obligation, to object recognizing that it might result in severing the relationship. Also, I think it is very appropriate, possibly advisable, to inform them that we don't agree with their beliefs and ask that this subject not be brought up as it will only harm the relationship. George

Adekis, I think St. Augustine is generally credited with this concept. However, It is mentioned at 2 Esdras 3:21 in the Apocrypha. This is a Jewish writing from the 1st century. The idea may go back even earlier. So, since it is attested in the first century, I think it would be reasonable to think that Jesus knew about this concept. George

Adekis, welcome. George

Raven, This kind of thing really annoys me, and I am sure others, as well. I rationalize it that people like this truly are certain that they possess the truth about salvation and, as such, feel an obligation to share it with others. What if they were certain but kept the truth only for themselves? Wouldn't that be terribly selfish? Having proposed a rationale, that doesn't make it any less annoying. Hang it there. George

Kinda. According to Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary it is from Latin meaning "reverence, piety, religion, probably from religare to tie back, tie up, tie fast." Its Indo-European root is *leig 'bind.' George

That is a nice thought, but we tried it and it left millions of people without access to health care. Churches cannot prevent insurance companies from terminating coverage, denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, etc, George

Dutch, I generally agree except that culture and personal experience also have a powerful effect on our worldview. (Of course, these are also generally outside our ability to determine.) What continues to amaze me are the people who are devout Christians but hold a worldview contrary to that of Jesus. They can embrace personal greed and denigrate altruism while professing Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. I would love to hear a reasoned and reasonable reconciliation. PC's have an easier road to differ with the reported words of Jesus. We can explain that he didn't actually say it, it was mistranslated, or we can metaphor-ize it, or contextualize it. But, if one believes every word in the Bible is the literal word of God and Jesus actually said everything reported as it is written, the reconciliation would, it seems to me, be much harder. George

Joseph, The problem with "voting my conscience" is we live in a real world with real world consequences of our vote (at least in certain states). To suggest that there was no difference between Bush and Gore, or today between Romney and Obama is, I think, false. Obama is not a socialist and Romney isn't a fascist, but there are significant difference between them - just ask undocumented immigrants, women, gays. Had Gore been elected, does anyone think we would have gone to war in Iraq? Would there have been massive tax cuts primarily benefiting the rich? If McCain had been elected would we be leaving Afghanistan? Would there be universal health care? Would gays in the military still not be telling? Would there have been any form of Wall-Street reform? George

Stanley, Noam Chomsky said that he voted for Nader, but had he lived in a swing state instead of Massachusetts, he would have voted for Gore (i.e. against Bush). George

It is clear that Christianity today accommodates a wide variety of worldviews. But, what I find interesting is the inconsistency between Jesus' message of caring for each other and the economic positions of 'Christians' who follow Ayn Rand, like Paul Ryan. With Rand, there was no inconsistency, she rejected Christianity partly on grounds of altruism for which she had contempt. In fact, she described altruism as "evil." But, what about Paul Ryan who claims to be both a follower of Jesus and a follower of Rand? George

In the OP, I asked, "Can one really embrace Jesus' message of caring for the "least of these" and then vote for politicians who support policies that harm "the least of these?" I am reading a book now about Ayn Rand ("Goddess of the Market, Ayn Rand and the American Right"), the intellectual mentor, of the Tea Party and Paul Ryan. She answers my question quite directly. She says, "Christianity is the best kindergarten of communism possible." She was a fervent atheist and anti-communist. So, she saw a clear link between Jesus' message and socialism as a economic system. George

Joseph, It seems to me that we bring one set of values to both our religion and politics, so how can we keep these separate? Can we truly care for others in our religious activities and be uncaring in our political activities? Mark Shields, a journalist and commentator on the PBS News Hour commented about Mitt Romney being a very caring person with respect to people he knows, but doesn't have the same concern for people he has never met (i.e. millions of American citizens). I thought that was an interesting observation. So, WWJD? George

Now that election season is fully underway in the U.S., it might be appropriate to ask, can we really separate religion and politics? I would argue no. I think that politics is one important way in which we express our values. If religion has anything to do with morality or values, then I don't think one could neatly separate this from politics. Can one really embrace Jesus' message of caring for the "least of these" and then vote for politicians who support policies that harm "the least of these?" I do oppose (I think) churches, as tax exempt organizations, formally endorsing and promoting candidates. But, I don't think churches should abstain from addressing basic political issues such as social programs, militarism, social issues such as abortion, gay rights, etc. What sayeth PCs? George

Rivanna, Thanks for the references. To take Flood's HuffPost essay a step farther, not even the Democrats dare mention "the poor." Sometimes they are referred to in code 'middle class' where other times they are ignored or forgotten. This worldview is founded on the notion that people are poor because they are lazy. This is more true today than in Jesus' day because, at that time, there was very limited social mobility. Today, social mobility is possible, but to claim that a poor, minority child born to a single-parent home has the same opportunity as Mitt Romney, born into a wealthy family and educated at the best private schools is delusional at best. While I agree with the conservative mantra of "equal opportunity, not equal outcome,' it assumes that opportunity is really equal. The opportunity field can only be even somewhat leveled with good public education, universal health care, a living wage, fair tax structures, etc. These are all policies that the conservatives oppose and undermine. George

FWIW, Rodney Stark, in his excellent book, The Rise of Christianity, argues that the growth of Christianity in the Roman empire was, to a great extent, the result of a tight-knit community assisting each other. As frequent plagues spread through Greco-Roman cities (Christianity was an urban religion), Christians out survived Pagans through nursing, feeding and assisting each other. As a result, Christianity grew relative to adherents of pagan religion. Although Jesus was not an economist or politician, I am convinced that he would have embraced socialism. I am personally not a pure socialist, but I do favor a more 'socialistic nanny state.' I can't imagine that Jesus would approve of Ayn-Rand individualism (the latest rage on the right) in which one is only their own keeper. George

Stanley, There was a discussion of this book in the book thread a little over a year ago under the title "Love Wins By Rob Bell." You might be interested in the comments and maybe you would like to add a comment and revive the discussion. George

I agree completely with your approach. I think we should recognize that religion should not be a one-size-fits-all proposition. As long as someone's beliefs are benign, I don't think we have grounds to object. We may disagree, but should not object (unless, of course, we possess knowledge of the objective truth ) However, some of the fundamentalist beliefs (I know nothing about The CofC) are not so benign - racism, sexism, militarism, homophobia, etc. I don't think these should be tolerated. George

Stanley, That is a good question, but, sorry I don't have a good answer. I suppose one could argue that God needed to do something dramatic to get our attention. And, I think the crucifixion did accomplish that. While I am personally agnostic on these question of divinity and divine intervention, I am impressed with Jesus' willingness to undergo this ultimate sacrifice. The question I have had in the past is if Jesus were, if fact, divine, was the sacrifice so great? Presumably, he could turn the pain off and he knew for certain he would enjoy eternal bliss. In fact, I think I would be more impressed if he were an ordinary, mortal man. George

I am not sure that Jesus would have no problem with divorce, but I think that is right (assuming he actually said it), the 'serious violation' would be in remarriage. George