Jesus calls nations to feed the hungry, treat prisoners as human, house the homeless, and provide clean water.
Jesus is very clear that nations are responsible, not just individuals. It is not merely a person's own charitable giving but our collective will as a nation.

Mt 25: 31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Waco1947 said:

---

Jesus calls nations to feed the hungry, treat prisoners as human, house the homeless, and provide clean water.
Jesus is very clear that nations are responsible, not just individuals. It is not merely a person's own charitable giving but our collective will as a nation.

Mt 25: 31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

---

1. Helping to feed the world's hungry is a just and noble cause.
2. Many prisoners, particularly violent ones, are animals and should be treated as such.
3. Most homeless on the streets are mentally ill and choose to be homeless, even if better options are available.
4. See #1

lmao man you are bat shyte crazy

Realitybites said:

---

No. Jesus calls his disciples and his Church to do this.

The job of governments is to maintain law and order and an environment on the ground so that his disciples and Church can do this.

---

The word Jesus himself uses is "nations"

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

lmao man you are bat shyte crazy

---

"'You're crazy' isn't an argument. If you think I'm wrong, explain which claim is wrong and why. Personal insults are usually what people reach for when they don't have a substantive response."

Redbrickbear said:

---

Jesus calls nations to justice and to charity

He did not call anyone to "social justice"

"Social justice is not universal justice, because it requires that rights be given to one person at the expense of another."

[Social justice does not belong to the category of error but to that of nonsense, like the term 'a moral stone'.] - Hayek

[adding a modifier to "justice" alters its definition entirely to mean economic equality of outcomes.] -Sowell

---

Jesus may not have used the modern phrase "social justice," but that doesn't mean he was indifferent to justice in society. He repeatedly called his followers to care for the poor, feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, visit prisoners, care for the sick, and defend those who were vulnerable.

DAC said:

---

He calls us to lead people to Christ and everlasting life through Him by repenting. He doesn't call us to lead people to eternal damnation by encouraging ones sinful lifestyle like you do.

---

I never argued that Matthew 25 is about earning salvation or replacing repentance with good works. Jesus clearly calls people to repentance, faith, and life in him.

But that doesn't mean Matthew 25 is irrelevant to how we liveor to the moral standard Jesus sets for how human beings treat one another. In Matthew 25, Jesus explicitly identifies feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked, and visiting the sick and imprisoned as acts of moral behavior


I take exception to this eternal damnation but that is a diffent thread

Social Justice is a myth.
Learn Greek.

most social injustice is because the idiot put himself/herself there

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Social Justice is a myth.
Learn Greek.

---

"Social justice is a myth. Learn Greek." isn't an argument; it's an appeal to authority. If you believe the biblical text rejects concern for justice, mercy, the poor, the stranger, or the oppressed, then make the exegetical case. Simply telling someone to "learn Greek" doesn't prove your conclusion.

And if we're going to talk about Greek, let's actually read Jesus' words in Matthew 25. He explicitly connects how people treat the hungry, thirsty, stranger, naked, sick, and imprisoned with how they treat Him.

You may reject the modern political use of the term social justice, but you cannot erase the biblical command to seek justice and care for our neighbor by declaring the concept a myth.

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

most social injustice is because the idiot put himself/herself there Victum blaming

---

The claim that most social injustice happens because people are "idiots who put themselves there" is not only insultingit ignores how poverty, discrimination, unequal opportunity, and circumstances beyond a person's control can shape someone's life.

Personal responsibility matters, but it does not explain away systemic or social injustice.

What doesn't help social injustice is the left's habitual "you are a victim" mentality

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

What doesn't help social injustice is the left's habitual "you are a victim" mentality

---

Quote:

---

"Are you saying that recognizing genuine injustice creates a victim mentality?

If so, how do you distinguish between teaching personal responsibility and simply ignoring circumstances where people really are being treated unjustly?"

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Social Justice is a myth.
Learn Greek.

---

"Social justice is a myth. Learn Greek." isn't an argument; it's an appeal to authority. If you believe the biblical text rejects concern for justice, mercy, the poor, the stranger, or the oppressed, then make the exegetical case. Simply telling someone to "learn Greek" doesn't prove your conclusion.

And if we're going to talk about Greek, let's actually read Jesus' words in Matthew 25. He explicitly connects how people treat the hungry, thirsty, stranger, naked, sick, and imprisoned with how they treat Him.

You may reject the modern political use of the term social justice, but you cannot erase the biblical command to seek justice and care for our neighbor by declaring the concept a myth.

---

Again, I think you need to update the App. You're again arguing a straw man. While not an excuse, one of the reasons sometimes I call you an idiot is because you constantly do that - you make one point and they when one refutes it you pretend like they're arguing something totally different.

Waco1947 said:

---

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

most social injustice is because the idiot put himself/herself there Victum blaming

---

The claim that most social injustice happens because people are "idiots who put themselves there" is not only insultingit ignores how poverty, discrimination, unequal opportunity, and circumstances beyond a person's control can shape someone's life.

Personal responsibility matters, but it does not explain away systemic or social injustice.

---

Name one example of "social" injustice (specifically not broad concepts).

Redbrickbear said:

---

Jesus calls nations to justice and to charity

He did not call anyone to "social justice"

"Social justice is not universal justice, because it requires that rights be given to one person at the expense of another."

[Social justice does not belong to the category of error but to that of nonsense, like the term 'a moral stone'.] - Hayek

[adding a modifier to "justice" alters its definition entirely to mean economic equality of outcomes.] -Sowell

---

Jesus calls us to social justice, which is not socialism, or equality of outcomes, but a right ordering of the relationship between rich and poor, employers and workers, etc.

Social justice is not a thing.

We have spent trillions feeding the poor, healing the poor, and housing the poor - how many more trillions should we spend in the name of Jesus?

GrowlTowel said:

---

We have spent trillions feeding the poor, healing the poor, and housing the poor - how many more trillions should we spend in the name of Jesus?

---

"The more that is done for the benefit of the working classes by the general laws of the country, the less need will there be to seek for special means to relieve them." (Pope Leo XIII) But Walmart would much rather see us borrow another trillion than pay a living wage.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Social justice is not a thing.

---

Good to see Conferate Hammerskin Hank disagrees with Jesus. Preach on White Power!

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Social Justice is a myth.
Learn Greek.

---

"Social justice is a myth. Learn Greek." isn't an argument; it's an appeal to authority. If you believe the biblical text rejects concern for justice, mercy, the poor, the stranger, or the oppressed, then make the exegetical case. Simply telling someone to "learn Greek" doesn't prove your conclusion.

And if we're going to talk about Greek, let's actually read Jesus' words in Matthew 25. He explicitly connects how people treat the hungry, thirsty, stranger, naked, sick, and imprisoned with how they treat Him.

You may reject the modern political use of the term social justice, but you cannot erase the biblical command to seek justice and care for our neighbor by declaring the concept a myth.

---

Again, I think you need to update the App. You're again arguing a straw man. While not an excuse, one of the reasons sometimes I call you an idiot is because you constantly do that - you make one point and they when one refutes it you pretend like they're arguing something totally different.

---

The irony is that the same standard applies to you: don't accuse me of a straw man without identifying exactly what I misrepresented. Show me the point you made, show me how I characterized it incorrectly, and then make your case. Otherwise, "you're arguing a straw man" just becomes a way of dismissing an argument without answering it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

We have spent trillions feeding the poor, healing the poor, and housing the poor - how many more trillions should we spend in the name of Jesus?

---

"The more that is done for the benefit of the working classes by the general laws of the country, the less need will there be to seek for special means to relieve them." (Pope Leo XIII) But Walmart would much rather see us borrow another trillion than pay a living wage.

---

Stop importing illegals that work below the living wage.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Jesus calls nations to justice and to charity

He did not call anyone to "social justice"

"Social justice is not universal justice, because it requires that rights be given to one person at the expense of another."

[Social justice does not belong to the category of error but to that of nonsense, like the term 'a moral stone'.] - Hayek

[adding a modifier to "justice" alters its definition entirely to mean economic equality of outcomes.] -Sowell

---

Jesus calls us to social justice, which is not socialism, or equality of outcomes, but a right ordering of the relationship between rich and poor, employers and workers, etc.

---

The Leftwing idea of "social justice" has a totally different relationship and meaning than the Catholic view.....

The Leftwing view is about treating people differently (especially racially)....the Catholic view was about the mutual obligations of each class to each other and to the wider society.


Pope St. Pius X's 1903 motu proprio, Fin Dalla Prima Nostra

[ VII. The following are obligations of justice binding on the proletariat and the workingman: To perform fully and faithfully the work which has been freely and, according to equity, agreed upon; not to injure the property or outrage the person of masters; even in the defense of their own rights to abstain from acts of violence, and never to make mutiny of their defense.

VIII. The following are obligations of justice binding on capitalists: To pay just wages to their workingmen; not to injure their just savings by violence or fraud, or by overt or covert usuries; not to expose them to corrupting seductions and danger of scandal; not to alienate them from the spirit of family life and from love of economy; not to impose on them labor beyond their strength, or unsuitable for their age or sex.

XI. For the settlement of the social question much can be done by the capitalists and workers themselves, by means of institutions designed to provide timely aid for the needy and to bring together and unite mutually the two classes. Among these institutions are mutual aid societies, various kinds of private insurance societies, orphanages for the young, and, above all, associations among the different trades and professions.]

GrowlTowel said:

---

We have spent trillions feeding the poor, healing the poor, and housing the poor - how many more trillions should we spend in the name of Jesus?

---

We should spend at least 1/2 of what we spend on the military.

In my lifetime, (and this list will not be comprehensive) we've spent billions

1: Viet Nam
2. (Nada Nada Nada) Iran/Colombia/Afghanistan)(covert)
3. Iraq 1
4. Afghanistan
5. Iraq 2
6. Iran
7.Syria
8. Venezuela

All with zero ROI.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

We have spent trillions feeding the poor, healing the poor, and housing the poor - how many more trillions should we spend in the name of Jesus?

---

We should spend at least 1/2 of what we spend on the military.

In my lifetime, (and this list will not be comprehensive) we've spent billions

1: Viet Nam
2. (Nada Nada Nada) Iran/Colombia/Afghanistan)(covert)
3. Iraq 1
4. Afghanistan
5. Iraq 2
6. Iran
7.Syria
8. Venezuela

All with zero ROI.

---

So . . . how many more trillion should our secular government spend to get right with Jesus?

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

We have spent trillions feeding the poor, healing the poor, and housing the poor - how many more trillions should we spend in the name of Jesus?

---

We should spend at least 1/2 of what we spend on the military.

In my lifetime, (and this list will not be comprehensive) we've spent billions

1: Viet Nam
2. (Nada Nada Nada) Iran/Colombia/Afghanistan)(covert)
3. Iraq 1
4. Afghanistan
5. Iraq 2
6. Iran
7.Syria
8. Venezuela

All with zero ROI.

---

So . . . how many more trillion should our secular government spend to get right with Jesus?

---

I can't speak for Jesus. Based on scripture, killing less brown people might help.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

We have spent trillions feeding the poor, healing the poor, and housing the poor - how many more trillions should we spend in the name of Jesus?

---

"The more that is done for the benefit of the working classes by the general laws of the country, the less need will there be to seek for special means to relieve them." (Pope Leo XIII) But Walmart would much rather see us borrow another trillion than pay a living wage.

---

Stop importing illegals that work below the living wage.

---

The effect on aggregate wages is debatable at best, but you know, I've never seen illegals rising up to demand longer hours and lower pay. If we want social justice to include them, I'm not against it.

Growl Towel So… how many more trillions should our secular government spend to get right with Jesus?

Jesus never gave the government a dollar amount to spend before it could "get right with Jesus." Matthew 25 is a call to usto recognize Christ in the hungry, thirsty, stranger, sick, and imprisoned. Turning that command into "how many trillions should government spend?" is just another way of avoiding the actual moral question: What are we personally willing to do for the least of these? Maybe your taxes?

Waco1947 said:

---

Growl Towel So… how many more trillions should our secular government spend to get right with Jesus?

Jesus never gave the government a dollar amount to spend

---

[The United States federal government spends approximately $4.1 trillion to $4.4 trillion each year on entitlement and mandatory social programs.

Out of this total, about $1.1 trillion to $1.3 trillion goes specifically toward lower-income safety net or means-tested "welfare" programs.]

The USA and its taxpayers spend the most of any nation on earth (or in human history) on social programs and welfare.

The European Union is much larger in population size than the USA. So far more citizens and far more taxpayers. And yet it spends less on social programs than America does.... [Across the European Union alone, this collective spending totals roughly 4 trillion]

African governments only allocate a regional average of 1.1% to 1.2% of GDP to non-contributory welfare like cash transfers, school feeding programs, and emergency food aid. And that number is only in the low billions. [African Union (AU) member countries spend an estimated $39.2 billion to $42.7 billion annually on direct social protection and welfare programs]. The African Union has 1.55 billion people/citizens living in its countries.

India has 1.4 Billion people. And it spend less than $200 billion on social and welfare spending. [Government of India allocates central expenditures to the social sector and welfare, which amounts to approximately 9.62 lakh crore (about $115 billion USD) from the central government]


So the population figures are:


African Union: 1.5 Billion
India: 1.4 Billion
EU: 460 Million
USA: 360 Million


So the USA spends more....with far less people and taxpayers

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

We have spent trillions feeding the poor, healing the poor, and housing the poor - how many more trillions should we spend in the name of Jesus?

---

We should spend at least 1/2 of what we spend on the military.

In my lifetime, (and this list will not be comprehensive) we've spent billions

1: Viet Nam
2. (Nada Nada Nada) Iran/Colombia/Afghanistan)(covert)
3. Iraq 1
4. Afghanistan
5. Iraq 2
6. Iran
7.Syria
8. Venezuela

All with zero ROI.

---

So . . . how many more trillion should our secular government spend to get right with Jesus?

---

I can't speak for Jesus. Based on scripture, killing less brown people might help.

---

Separate issue. Abortion47 says we need to spend more because Jesus instructs. My question is how many more trillions is required?

Waco1947 said:

---

Growl Towel So… how many more trillions should our secular government spend to get right with Jesus?

Jesus never gave the government a dollar amount to spend before it could "get right with Jesus." Matthew 25 is a call to usto recognize Christ in the hungry, thirsty, stranger, sick, and imprisoned. Turning that command into "how many trillions should government spend?" is just another way of avoiding the actual moral question: What are we personally willing to do for the least of these? Maybe your taxes?

---

Your argument is we should spend more. How much more is required?

We have spent trillions and trillions on the poor and the poverty rate is unchanged.

Maybe money is not the issue?

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Growl Towel So… how many more trillions should our secular government spend to get right with Jesus?

Jesus never gave the government a dollar amount to spend

---

[The United States federal government spends approximately $4.1 trillion to $4.4 trillion each year on entitlement and mandatory social programs.

Out of this total, about $1.1 trillion to $1.3 trillion goes specifically toward lower-income safety net or means-tested "welfare" programs.]

The USA and its taxpayers spend the most of any nation on earth (or in human history) on social programs and welfare.

The European Union is much larger in population size than the USA. So far more citizens and far more taxpayers. And yet it spends less on social programs than America does.... [Across the European Union alone, this collective spending totals roughly 4 trillion]

African governments only allocate a regional average of 1.1% to 1.2% of GDP to non-contributory welfare like cash transfers, school feeding programs, and emergency food aid. And that number is only in the low billions. [African Union (AU) member countries spend an estimated $39.2 billion to $42.7 billion annually on direct social protection and welfare programs]. The African Union has 1.55 billion people/citizens living in its countries.

India has 1.4 Billion people. And it spend less than $200 billion on social and welfare spending. [Government of India allocates central expenditures to the social sector and welfare, which amounts to approximately 9.62 lakh crore (about $115 billion USD) from the central government]


So the population figures are:


African Union: 1.5 Billion
India: 1.4 Billion
EU: 460 Million
USA: 360 Million


So the USA spends more....with far less people and taxpayers

---

If Jesus' call to care for the hungry, sick, poor, and vulnerable applies to nations, then our moral responsibility is not measured by what other nations choose to do. We have to ask what justice and compassion require of us. Whether another nation spends more or less on social programs is ultimately immaterial to our own obligation. Their choices don't excuse us from ours.