Joseph: On centralized power
Submitted by christopher on Fri, 2008-10-24 23:21
I was recently surprised by obvious injustice and error that I had previously failed to see in Joseph's government policies. Talk about unintended consequences!
bzealous says:
We miss a lot when we "think we know the story already", but in reality, we just know/remember the simplified "fairytale" from our youth. (absolutely nothing against fairytales here). The Bible is a historical account; full of real people, with real governments, and real crises. It is hard to make full comment without understanding the politics of the time more, and even the knowledge we have on that is circumspect.
Interesting audioblog...the two best parts 1) realizing that Joseph was a politician and not just a wise money managing Robin Hood type character, and 2) Amen that God is not in favor of human bondage!! This is where the core concept of freedom and liberty is found. Jesus came so that our hearts could be set free and live life abundant! I sure don't imagine an abundant life being one where I have to put myself in slavery in order to get food...yeah, I think that's solely the brilliant idea of us humans.
Christina
Aunt Judy says:
I have always liked the story of Joseph. But was not familiar with him selling the grain and taking livestock and land and the people themselves as payment (or I just don't remember it..I am getting on in years!). I read an article yesterday that compared that story to the fiasco occurring around Katrina. I think that was a stretch. I thought the major point of the story was that Joseph was guided by God to save the people (Jacob etal) from starvation and they were able to grow and multiply and the rest is history. I think sometimes that we may look too closely and literally at the bible and instead it should be used as a guide to christian living. It provides concepts and rules to live by and the stories themselves cannot always be applied literally to our lives today. I also think that you can apply rules of right and wrong with relation to goverments and laws without imposing religion on top of it. That is why we espouse separation of church and state. Am I making any sense here? LOL
christopher says:
Thanks for your thoughts.
I think much of the bible is an historical account. My thoughts on the story of Joseph presuppose that the story is real, and the historical lessons learned are valuable.
In regards to the separation of church and state, I think many of us have forgotten what it is. My current understanding is that separation of church and state means that the government does not make laws with regard to religion.
I think there is a false idea floating around that this means political decision making doesn't draw on personal moral conviction. For example, I think that honesty is a religious value that should be part of government, but it seems many people disagree, arguing that honesty is not highly important as long as the goals are good.
For me, Ron Paul exemplifies a correct understanding of the separation of church and state. I perceive him as a strong follower of Jesus, but he would never support government enforcement of a value that is purely religious. i.e. a ban on gay marriage.
Ironically, the principle of liberty, I believe, is a core characteristic of God and fundamental to the success of any society.
Aunt Judy says:
Got to run in a minute but....I do believe our country is based values and those values are reflected in government. But there are a lot of people who are good, and have high moral values but are from different religions. So I don't see them actually applying their stories literally to government. Laws and justice exist and can exist without each religion applying their own interpretation based on whatever book they use as their guide. I just get wary when I hear someone talk about their religion when they are talking about politics. I agree with what you say above about separation of state and church but I am turned off when someone in a political environment uses his religion to make a point. Most religions have the same basic values but there are some differences and I don't think they belong in political dialog.
christopher says:
Well, if I was a congressman, I wouldn't choose the story of Joseph to make my political points, but as a follow of Jesus and a believer in the bible, I am convinced that it has valuable insight into what is happening in the world around us. Obviously my observations are meaningless to those who do not believe the bible, and even perhaps to those who accept it, but on different terms.
I think religious people should be talking about politics. I think they should consider how the government's activity fits with their overall understanding of the world around them. I am one person, not two halves: not a political half and a spiritual half.
I see followers of Jesus talking about his goodness and grace, and then talking about how we need to kill group X because they are radical something-elsers. I strongly believe that this is NOT the spirit of Christ; these people are misled. Jesus is pretty clear on how his followers should view violence and murder.
christopher says:
Another interesting point that I forgot to mention: Just as the Egyptian government taxed to become owners of everything in Egypt, our government has taxed and counterfeited its way to taking ownership of everything in America. Sure, we've got a ways to go, but now they own a big piece of the mortgage industry, the insurance industry, the banking industry, perhaps soon the automotive industry, etc., etc., etc...
I wonder if Pharaoh called it socialism? It seems to me that the only difference between socialism and an evil oligarchy, is who's in charge.
adam says:
Intersting insight. I think we need to send this to Ira Glass at This American Life - I bet they would air it!
rww says:
Great audio blog.
I am looking forward to hearing more.