What is love? What is justice? How are they related?

What is love? What is justice? How are they related?

Introduction

The definition of love in the New Testament is expressed by the Greek word 'Agape'. It means to assess what another person or group needs for its well being, and acting to provide it. It is not devoid of feeling, but it is not primarily a feeling. This paper would aim to find out what justice means in the biblical context, and then find out the relation of love (as defined above) and justice (in the biblical context). The idea is to determine if there exists tension between the two? Further, if this tension is prevalent, the question of how do you resolve the tension, would be assessed? Lastly, the arguments would aim to express the injunction (for Christians) to be loving and just without a conflict between the two?

Discussion

What justice means in the biblical context

When talking over the Christian perspective of social justice, we have to characterize terms. Social justice is frequently utilized as an arousing sob for numerous adherents left of the political range. Social justice is likewise a concept that some utilization to portray the development to socially just planet. In this connection, social justice is dependent upon the concepts of human rights and correspondence, which infers a more stupendous level of budgetary egalitarianism through ongoing assessment, salary redistribution, or even property redistribution. Such arrangements expect to realize what developmental economists allude to as additional uniformity of chances that may right now exist in a few social orders, and getting of correspondence of conclusion in situations where accidental imbalances show up in a procedurally just framework (Block, 2012).

The pivotal word in this definition is the statement "egalitarianism". This saying, together with the expressions wage redistribution, redistribution of property, and fairness of outcomes, says a mess in regards to social justice. Egalitarianism as a political teaching basically pushes the thought that all individuals may as well have the same (equivalent) political, social, monetary and social equality. This thought is dependent upon the establishment of natural human rights, worshipped in archives, for example the Declaration of Independence (Wolterstorff, 2011).

On the other hand, as investment hypothesis, egalitarianism is the driving compel behind communism and socialism. Is investment egalitarianism which looks to wipe out hindrances to financial bias through the redistribution of riches? We see this in social aid programs, where accelerating charge approaches, taking proportionately more cash from well off people, with a specific end goal to raise the living models of individuals who fail to offer the same implies. At the end of the day, the legislature takes from the rich and gives to poor people (Block, 2012).

The issue with this regulation is twofold: to start with, there is a wrong presumption in investment egalitarianism, that the rich are rich by misusing poor people. A great part of the communist written works of the previous 150 years pushes this commences. This may have been the primary driver previously, when Karl ...